Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Liverpool

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit Liverpool to meet the Liverpool city council.

Mr. Terry Fields: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit Liverpool for discussions with Liverpool city councillors.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): As part of my regular series of visits to Liverpool, I have arranged to look at housing conditions there on 7 June.

Mr. Parry: Now that the people of Liverpool have given the Labour party a clear mandate through the ballot box, and as the Government firmly believe in secret ballots, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to put more money on the table, as rightly demanded by Liverpool? Will he bring the Prime Minister with him when he pays his visit—the right hon. Lady has been to Liverpool only once since becoming Prime Minister, and that was following the Toxteth riots—so that she may also see at first hand the problems of Liverpool, particularly in relation to unemployment and the environment?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that my right hon. Friend is considering whether to pay a visit to Liverpool, which would include the visit to the garden festival. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I am sure that he, as a good parliamentarian, recognises that there can be no electoral mandate for an unlawful act and that there is no question but that it remains the duty of Liverpool city council to make a lawful budget and a lawful rate. I hope that it will do that, and as swiftly as possibly.

Mr. Fields: Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the decision of Liverpool city council to defer its budget-making, legal or illegal, until after his visit as a genuine, forward and positive step? Will he assure the people of Liverpool that he will visit the area with no preconceived, rigid position and that he will look at, evaluate and judge the desperate needs of the people of Liverpool? For God's sake, do not go there with any preconceived and rigid ideas.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction recently looked at housing problems in

the city and I wish to see them for myself as a background to future housing capital allocations. I must make it clear that my visit has no connection with the council's budget-making and rate-fixing process; there must be no misunderstanding about that. As I said, the council is under a clear legal duty to make a rate, and it should do so without delay.

Mr. Fields: Will the Minister be coming with an open mind?

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the militants who now run the city of Liverpool that the city's credibility is at stake and that financial institutions cannot be expected to invest in Liverpool city stock unless the council runs its affairs on prudent and law-abiding lines?

Mr. Fields: The hon. Gentleman should come and live there.

Mr. Jenkin: As I said, Liverpool has a clear duty to make an adequate rate, and I hope that the decision overnight not to make an illegal rate next Tuesday is the first step towards an adequate rate. There will, of course, be credit worthiness problems if the city continues without a lawful rate, but there is no reason why Liverpool's behaviour should affect lenders' attitudes towards other authorities which have acted in accordance with the law and good financial practice and have made legal rates.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that, despite the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), the people of Liverpool made it clear, by electing only three out of 34 Conservative candidates last Thursday, that they reject the Tory party's philosophy? In view of his more flexible answers to questions, will he agree, to look in a positive way at Liverpool's housing investment programme? May we take it that there is at least some hope that the housing prospects of the people of Liverpool will be bettered as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's new flexibility?

Mr. Jenkin: I certainly recognise that the housing problems facing many of the people of Liverpool are extremely difficult. That is why I responded when I was invited by the city council to visit Liverpool to see some of the problem areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that any question of future capital allocations for housing, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), can have only the most marginal impact upon rate support grant and the duty to make a legal rate. That is why I want to make it clear that my visit on 7 June, to which I am looking forward, has nothing to do with the duty to make a legal rate, which rests firmly on the city council.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, that the Liverpool vote reflected only 19 per cent. support for Government policies and showed clearly that there was no mandate for confrontation and an illegal rate? Given that the Labour vote decreased from that which was obtained last year and that the only party whose vote increased was the Liberal party, which went up to 34 per cent., does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the solution might lie in the direction proposed by the Liberal group in Liverpool, which demands of the Secretary of State a repayment of some of the rate support


grant which has been removed and a cancellation of some of the debts that are being paid on housing that no longer exists?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will have heard that I have been in touch with the leader of the Liberal party in Liverpool and had useful exchanges with him. I must reaffirm that, whatever the result of the vote, it cannot possibly amount to any form of sanction for an unlawful rate. I hope that all councillors of all parties in Liverpool will bend their attention to getting the council to fix a proper budget and a lawful rate so the city's affairs can remain under control.

Mr. Hargreaves: When my right hon. Friend is in Liverpool, will he take the opportunity to travel down the east Lancashire road to Hyndburn, where the results of the local elections last week were far more satisfactory and where even a small percentage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Liverpool.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is there not now in Liverpool a clear and broad consensus in favour of a settlement of the city's problems, which goes right across the churches and voluntary bodies, as well as the political parties? I recognise the need for a legal rate to be fixed at some point and as soon as possible, but should not the problems of the city be resolved by negotiation between the Secretary of State and the city council and not by allowing the problems of the city to slide into chaos? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the appalling difficulties that the people of Liverpool now face will become unimaginably worse if the city is allowed to slide into bankruptcy? I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will meet the leaders of the Liverpool city council and if I and my hon. Friends can be of any assistance in those discussions—[Laughter]—we shall be ready to help to find a solution to the problem. What I find saddening about this exchange is the pathetic laughter from the Conservative Benches about Liverpool's problems.

Mr. Jenkin: I wish to put on record—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not object to this—that he and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have throughout been entirely firm in their view that it is the city council's duty to make a lawful rate. I am grateful to him for his offer to use his good offices if that becomes necessary. I said on the day after the election that my door remains open.

Mr. Hoyle: But is the right hon. Gentleman's mind?

Mr. Jenkin: I am ready to meet the city councillors again if they wish to meet me. As I have already said, I hope that the decision on Tuesday not to press ahead with an unlawful budget and an inadequate rate is a sign that there may now be a growing wish on the part of the citizens of Liverpool not to go down that road. If that is so, it can only be welcomed.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 2, Mr. Banks.

Mr. Parry: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order later.

Mr. Nellist: It is the same every time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Later—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) to make the comment he wished to make earlier.

Mr. Parry: Thank you, Sir. Further to the totally unacceptable reply of the Secretary of State, I advise you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for cutting him down so quickly.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is in a position to estimate the additional block grant which will be payable to London boroughs and joint boards in the event of the abolition of the Greater London council.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): No, Sir. The level of London's block grant after abolition will depend on the spending decisions of the authorities which take on responsibilities from the GLC.

Mr. Banks: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that is most unlikely that the figures bandied about by the Government are in any way acceptable to the Opposition—or even obtainable, given the pathetic record of the Secretary of State, who reorganised the area health authorities, and the fact that the savings he claimed never appeared? How can we have any faith in the statements made by the shambles on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric was not a sensible question. Obviously, the policy will deliver savings. That is part of the reason why the policy is being opposed by vested interests, perhaps those represented by the hon. Gentleman, who do not want those savings to be made.

Historic Building and Monuments Commission

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering granting any extra funds for the Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I have no plans to increase the grant-in-aid of £52 million allocated to the commission for this financial year.

Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will grants be available only for listed structures? Will my hon. Friend's Department, or the new commission, be responsible for the designation of listed structures? What will happen to applications for grant that were already in the pipeline on 1 April when the commission took over its task, such as Hythe pier in my constituency?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give a specific answer to the constituency case affecting my hon. Friend, but I undertake to look into that point. I understand that he has referred to an unlisted building. No money is available from the commission for unlisted buildings. I am confident that the commission has been staffed by experienced people from my Department. The necessary expertise to


fulfil its functions has been given to the commission. My hon. Friend might need to take up some aspects of his question direct with the commission.

Mr. Key: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, given the fact that no extra grants will be available to it, the commission will be able to cope with the compensation payable after the illegal Stonehenge pop festival? Will my hon. Friend give every possible support to encourage the commission and the National Trust to persuade people that the festival is illegal?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantees, because that is primarily a matter for the Home Office. I know that my hon. Friend raised this matter with the Home Office on a previous occasion. The benefit of the new commission is that it can handle cases more efficiently and effectively. The commission has the necessary expertise, and my hon. Friend should direct his attention to that body.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet received a proposal from the metropolitan county councils for a meeting to discuss the Coopers and Lybrand report concerning the implications of abolishing the metropolitan county councils.

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet received a proposal from the metropolitan county councils for a meeting to discuss the Coopers and Lybrand report concerning the implications of abolishing the metropolitan county councils.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Yes, and I have agreed to meet the leaders of the six metropolitan counties again.

Mr. Hoyle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he make a comparative statement about the extensive study carried out by Coopers and Lybrand, which he admitted was an independent study, and the study prepared by Price Waterhouse and Co. in great haste for the six metropolitan districts prior to the election on 3 May?

Mr. Jenkin: The difference is that the Price Waterhouse study—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has examined this carefully—was based on the studies and information provided by a number of district councils which will succeed to the various functions that will devolve upon them under the abolition Act. Those councils are much better placed than any firm of independent accountants, however distinguished, to know what the savings will be, and to make the decisions, because they will be responsible for running those services. They have pointed out that there will be significant savings because of the rationalisation of the structure of local government in metropolitan areas.

Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Coopers and Lybrand has a reasonable reputation for offering advice on how to eliminate waste, inefficiency and duplication, and that that was not the job that it was asked to do by the metropolitan counties?

Mr. Jenkin: As I said when the report was published, its study can only be as good as the assumptions upon which it was based. Its report was frank enough to say that. We now have a more up-to-date report based on more

realistic assumptions from the districts. I prefer to place my faith in that. I believe that it is a good deal more realistic.

Mr. Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Price Waterhouse claim based on studying Greater Manchester and the findings of one district council there, which were then spread over the other nine, is not necessarily the best way to study the proposed abolition of the metropolitan counties?

Mr. Jenkin: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but as yet these figures can only be broad orders of magnitude. Until the districts have access to the detailed information which at present lies locked in the files of the metropolitan counties, they cannot give more accurate estimates. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the purposes of the Bill that we shall be discussing later today is to unlock that information, to make available the more accurate estimates that everyone is seeking.

Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the massive propaganda campaign mounted at ratepayers' expense by the Greater Manchester council, there is still widespread popular support for his proposal to abolish it and that that support can only be further enhanced when the Government deal in detail with the criticisms made by the Coopers and Lybrand report?

Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware of the substantial support in the north-west for the ending of the Greater Manchester council, as I discovered during a recent visit to a number of district authorities in that area. Yes, of course, the case will be greatly strengthened when, with the benefit of the information that we obtain, we shall be able to answer with a great deal more force the charges that have been made. against us.

Mr. Nellist: If the Secretary of State— [Interruption.] There is still half an hour left. This document, of about 18 pages, shows how much faith the Secretary of State has to chuck around. It was prepared by six Tory councils — two of which, since the May elections, have withdrawn from its conclusions, leaving four Tory councils — after an in-depth study in four working days and circulated two days before the elections. If that is the extent of his faith in the investigative abilities of Price Waterhouse, when will the right hon. Gentleman produce some estimates of how much he intends to save by the abolition of the metropolitan counties?

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that I shall have an opportunity to say something on that subject during the course of this afternoon's events.

Mr. Tracey: When my right hon. Friend digests the findings of these various accountants' reports, perhaps he will also remember that the men, as it were, at the coal face—the borough treasurers of some of the London boroughs—estimate savings in excess of £200 million as a result of the abolition of the GLC.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. Those two accountants' report referred only to the metropolitan counties. The savings to be achieved in Greater London are of course additional to that, and although those figures include some policy savings as well as efficiency and rationalisation savings, I have no doubt that they will form part of the agreement. We must make them better known.

Mr. Straw: Is not the truth that there is no comparison in the quality of the independent study undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand over many months and that of Price Waterhouse, conducted in 11 days, including Easter, based on information provided by Tory councils and essentially a put-up job in a desperate attempt to garner a few votes before the local elections? If the Secretary of State is so confident about Price Waterhouse's conclusions, why, 11 months after he and the Conservative party first made the claim, have they not provided any details of their claim that £120 million will be saved by the abolition of these councils?

Mr. Tony Banks: Because he does not know.

Mr. Jenkin: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), we may have an opportunity to debate these matters later in the day. The fact that I have made repeatedly clear is that, until lower tier councils have full access to cost and other information available to the upper tier councils about the services to be devolved upon them, it is not possible for them, my officials or anybody else to make a detailed estimate of what the savings will be. With each report it becomes more and more certain that there will be substantial savings and that this will redound to the benefit of ratepayers.

Basildon (Council Houses)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement with regard to assistance given by his Department to Basildon district council concerning the removal of asbestos from certain council-owned dwellings.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): My Department took account of Basildon council's problems with asbestos when the housing investment programme allocations for the current year were being decided.

Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware of the real concern felt by many people in my constituency, and people in Basildon, about the removal of asbestos? Will he encourage the council to use some of its extra HIP allocation of two thirds of a million pounds to ensure the removal of asbestos, as the cost is estimated to be about a third of a million pounds?

Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. The allocation this year is some £887,000 higher than for last year and the estimated cost of removing the asbestos from the heating systems is £340,000. It should be within the council's ability to tackle this problem, but I understand the concern that this has generated among the tenants.

Water Supplies (Nitrate Pollution)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost to water authorities of conforming to the revised standards of nitrate pollution of water supplies which come into effect in 1985; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): In order to meet in full the European Community directive, which comes into force on 15 July next year, up to £50 million in capital outlay and some £5 million per annum in operational expenditure. However,

as my hon. Friend knows, the directive permits derogations and I expect the actual cost to be substantially less.

Mr. Taylor: As the substantial extra expenditure, which will put up water rates further, is the direct consequence of a substantial, dramatic and uncontrolled increase in the use of nitrate fertilisers, is it not deplorable that the Ministry of Agriculture's advisory service has sent a circular to dairy farmers urging them to use even more nitrate fertilisers? Does not my hon. Friend's Department have a special duty to argue for a cut in the use of nitrate fertilisers, in the interests of public health and as a means of keeping down water rates?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend has taken a characteristically tenacious interest in this subject. He will know that in the autumn the important provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 come into operation, which will give the Government extra powers to control nitrate pollution. I shall certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the document to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I shall then write to him.

Mr. Wigley: On the problem of pollution of water supplies by excess acidity in reservoirs and lakes, what progress has been made with the proposals which the Minister's Department made for a three-year investigation into this problem?

Mr. Gow: Modest progress.

Mr. Holt: I am sure that the House will congratulate the Northumbria water authority on obtaining an export order from Gibraltar, but can my hon. Friend say, in view of the excessive costs for water ratepayers, what consultations he is having with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to introducing a water rate rebate system similar to that for ordinary ratepayers?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) drew the attention of the House, in the early hours of this morning, to the export order won by the Northumbria water authority; and I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to that authority. As to rebates for water rates, I am not proposing to have any such discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that most of this nitrate pollution is caused by the over-use of nitrogenous fertilisers? If the Minister is not prepared to enter into discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he have discussions with the Treasury about putting a tax on nitrogenous fertilisers, to try to make the farmers use it more efficiently and effectively?

Mr. Gow: I have told the House that I am prepared to discuss this with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these discussions are continuing, and it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to issue a code of good agricultural practice on this subject in the autumn of this year. That code will apply itself specifically to the problem of nitrates.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the list of responses to Cmnd. 9063 placed in the Library was accurately prepared by his Department.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir, although it is a matter of judgment as to what might be classed as a major national organisation.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister confirm from figures that he placed in the Library that 91, people are in favour of abolishing the GLC and that 117,400 people are not in favour of its abolition? Is there not some doubt about those 91, as I have an example of an inaccuracy in the Minister's published list? The Wildfowl Trust is included, but I have a letter from that organisation saying that it has made no response. How can hon. Members rely upon the published list? Will the Minister put full details of the consultation in the Library so that they can be scrutinised properly by hon. Members?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in suggesting that not all of the money spent on the campaign has been wasted, as thousands of people have responded to it. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, this is the second major mistake that he has found. He has found two slips in the list so far and we shall check it again.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend bear carefully in mind the distinction between those who somehow seek no change in the present arrangements and those who seek major changes in the continuing concept of directly elected authorities?

Mr. Waldegrave: I understand the range of different criticisms. My hon. Friend has simplified the matter by lumping them together.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that last week Labour strengthened its position on the five councils in the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear by winning 87 of the 113 seats? Is he further aware that the leader of the Tory group on Sunderland borough council lost her seat? Is that not the strongest possible response from the people of Tyne and Wear to the Minister's proposals?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman may have been aware that the Government somewhat strengthened their position at the previous election, when they put the matter in the Conservative manifesto.

Mr. Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that 23,000 people are employed by the GLC and that there are forms for them to sign to the right and left of the entrance lobby in County Hall and that many employees have done so?

Mr. Waldegrave: It would be quite interesting to work out in terms of the number of letters written to us how much has been spent by the GLC. I believe that it has been an expensive exercise.

Mr. Michie: Bearing in mind the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), my colleague from the other side of Tyne and Wear, will the Minister reconsider the proposals for local government reorganisation in both the GLC and the provincial metropolitan counties? Will he bear in mind the test case in South Yorkshire, where the issue was

democracy in the metropolitan counties, even though the election was for Sheffield district council, when Sheffield's electors overwhelmingly voted for increased support for a Labour-controlled authority, to such an extent that the Tory policy on reorganisation has proved to be so bad for Tories that some of them are considering whether to vote for the alliance?

Mr. Waldegrave: It must be for the House, based on the mandate of the Government, to organise local authority reform.

Mr. Favell: Has the Minister any idea what the hundreds of employees who are involved in trying to save the metropolitan councils were doing before the threatened abolition?

Mr. Waldegrave: They were waiting for their great opportunity.

Mr. Straw: If the Minister seeks to denigrate that overwhelming majority of people who have made submissions against the Government's proposals, can he explain the original purpose of seeking opinions through consultation? If the Minister dismisses the results of the consultation process, will he take into account the results of elections in the six metropolitan counties last week and the results of public opinion polls in Greater London, showing that a phenomenal 76 per cent. of the Greater London electorate wish to see the GLC preserved?

Mr. Waldegrave: Among the responses, which were clearly the result of highly organised campaigns in favour of the status quo, there were many useful contributions. The Secretary of State has already made several changes in the original proposals in response to consultation.

House Building

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses or flats will be started in London in 1984; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79.

Sir George Young: During 1978–79, 11,500 local authority dwellings were reported as started within Greater London. My Department has made no estimate for 1984.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that nobody will be taken in by that answer? Is he further aware that the dramatic decline in house building since the Government took office means that thousands of people who are increasingly desperate for a decent home cannot afford to buy and are badly housed or homeless as a direct result of the Government's policies?

Sir George Young: Council starts in London fell by more than half from 1975 to 1979. Although they continued to fall until 1981, they have risen since then by 70 per cent.

Mr. Lyell: If the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) wishes to rejuvenate the inner cities, would he not do better, rather than concentrating so much on council housing, to encourage those many London councils which own thousands of empty houses to sell them to people who will do them up themselves and thereby bring back into the inner city the capable people which the Bishop of Liverpool regretted had left?

Sir George Young: My hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point. About 10,000 local authority dwellings in


London have been empty for over a year. If they were brought into use they would have a direct application to the problems raised, quite rightly, by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs).

Mr. Pike: Can the Minister state what share of the new starts in the council housing sector in London is for general housing needs and what share is for sheltered housing accommodation?

Sir George Young: Not without notice.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend start to dismantle the near monopoly that councils have in rented housing by passing over some of the rented accommodation in London on the winding-up of the GLC either to housing associations or, alternatively, to public companies specially licensed to take on that responsibility?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that at Thamesmead we have a proposal, along exactly the lines that he has mentioned, to transfer the large estate there to a non-public sector company which will not only run the housing but, I hope, bring to a satisfactory conclusion the development that has begun.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building starts in the public sector; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.

Mr. Gow: About 10,700 public sector dwellings were started in England during the first quarter of this year and 12,900 in the same period of 1979.

Mr. Skinner: Are not those figures scandalous? Do they not show that, despite the fact that we have an aging population of more than 9 million pensioners, many of them crying out for ground floor accommodation, the Government are more concerned with reducing grants to local authorities to stop them building? We have 500,000 building workers on the dole. We have millions of bricks lying in stockpiles. We have elderly people who would like accommodation in bungalows or ground floor flats. Why do the Government not show some compassion and get on with some house building for those elderly people?

Mr. Gow: I am happy to be able to tell the House that in each of the past four years there has been an increase in the number of housing starts. We are making available more than £3·25 billion in this financial year for investment in the public sector.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend recall that the former political agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) exercised his right to buy his council house? Does he not agree that one way of providing homes for those who rightly demand the right to rent would be if the Labour party dropped its mongrel dogmatic objections to the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980?

Mr. Skinner: And now he is on strike.

Mr. Gow: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not only the former agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover who has bought his former council home—

Mr. Skinner: Who was it?

Mr. Gow: The former agent of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Mr. Gow: I am also glad to say that a growing number of miners have bought their homes from the National Coal

Board. Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister arrived in Downing street some 1·4 million extra people have become owner-occupiers.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister not ashamed of the figures he gave to the House? If he is not, he should be. When will he remove the shackles from local authorities so that they can get on with the job that they were elected to do, that is, to provide proper housing? The Conservative party promised to do that at the 1979 and 1983 general elections. When will the Government provide housing for the elderly and those in need, instead of providing jobs for estate agents?

Mr. Gow: A local public sector provision of £3·25 billion does not put shackles on a housing programme. The hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the Government's record on improvement grants. We provided about £900 million during the last financial year, which is 10 times as much as that given by the previous Labour Government.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister confirm that the latest Department of Environment figures show a further drop in house building stocks of 13 per cent. compared with a year ago? Will he further confirm that, despite the drop in house building in the public sector, his Department is preparing a contingency plan for a freeze on all housing capital construction programmes, to begin in July or August, because of the level of local authority spending, mainly on improvement and repair grants, undertaken last year and this year on the advice of his Department? Will he put a stop to these plans for a moratorium on council house spending later this year and fight for the homeless instead of the Treasury?

Mr. Gow: I give no such confirmation to the hon. Gentleman.

Didcot Local Plan

Mr. Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the reports of his inspector on the inquiry into the Didcot local plan and an inter-related planning appeal to be published.

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand that the inspector will submit both reports next week. Publication of the report of the local plan will be a matter for the south Oxfordshire district council within the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations 1982—Statutory Instrument 555/1982.
My Department will issue the report on the planning appeals with the decisions that my right hon. Friend makes on those appeals.

Mr. Jackson: On behalf of my constituents I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but does he share my opinion that 10 months—the time since the public inquiry began#x2014is rather a long time for the inquiry to have taken?

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety and regret the delay. The inspector has worked solely on the reports for the Didcot structure plan since the end of February. The deployment of inspectors with specialist skills made him most suitable to hold another inquiry at the end of January and the beginning of February. However, I hope that we can speed up the inquiry.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to publish any revised consultation papers or proposals relating to Cmnd. 9063 in the light of the responses received to date.

Mr. Waldergrave: My right hon. Friend set out the majority of our conclusions in the statements made in his speech on Second Reading of the Interim Provisions Bill on 11 April, and in a written answer on 4 May. Further statements will be made as necessary.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will there be flexibility following consultation?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend has already made a number of changes, but the answer is yes.

Mr. Tony Banks: How many of the responses to Cmnd. 9063 did the Minister receive from Conservative bodies or associations which had been encouraged to send them by his colleagues?

Mr. Waldegrave: They needed no encouragement.

Radioactive Waste (Disposal)

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses have been received to his Department's consultation paper on disposal facilities on land for low and intermediate level radioactive waste.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am glad to say that 115 submissions were received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. These are currently being considered, and a summary of the points made will be published alongside the final version of the assessment principles for disposal facilities.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the present non-definition of "as low as reasonably attainable", which is used for the doses of radioactive materials in the atmoshpere, is unsatisfactory? We need a definition in statutory instrument form so that we can debate it properly. When we get the definition right, we should also get the disposal siting right—at least 2 miles from where people live.

Mr. Waldegrave: I note the hon. Gentleman's second point, which will be considered with the other points made in the Liberal party's submission. I do not think that his point was correct. The ALARA principle, if used toughly, could be more effective in controlling emissions to the environment than would a single number, but that is a subject for debate.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend recall that last week a petition signed by 85,000 people from Cleveland was handed to the Prime Minister? For how much longer must the people of Cleveland wait before NIREX puts in an application, the House has an opportunity to debate the matter, and we remove the threat of nuclear waste dumping near large conurbations?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware of the views of my hon. Friend's constituents, because he has been assiduous in putting them forward. It is for NIREX to bring forward proposals, and I have no new information for my hon. Friend today as to when that will happen.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As ALARA and ALATA relate to sea discharges, does the Minister accept that the people of Cumbria and the people of western Europe and

the United States of America all demand lower nuclear discharges to the sea? As to land discharges, would it not be better to have an international initiative and group all land nuclear waste in an island somewhere in the north Atlantic away from major centres of population, so as to ensure that hon. Members need not repeatedly return to the House demanding that nuclear waste is not deposited in their constituencies?

Mr. Waldegrave: I understand the hon. Gentleman's first point. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows, there are proposals to diminish authorisations. Although the hon. Gentleman's second point sounds attractive, there might be considerable difficulties in the ship-borne passage of waste. However, the idea has been put forward and, I believe, considered.

Mr. Barron: Does the Minister accept that the level of nuclear waste and its disposal, whether on land or at sea, have great implications for British people that justify not only a debate in the House but a full public inquiry so that all organisations that are worried about radioactive waste can make submissions to the inquiry and we can make a proper decision in the interests of all British people, not just of people in some areas?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree that any proposal must be followed by a full public inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear. The subject has been debated in the House, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the growing opposition to the dumping of waste at Billingham, which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) mentioned, will the Government make clear whether it is their policy that only one site should be considered for the dumping of intermediate level waste?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we shall use the procedure of the European environmental impact assessment, even though the directive for it has not yet been passed. That procedure includes provision for a comparison of alternative sites.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Minister confirm that the principle of ALARA refers to sea discharges of nuclear effluent, not to the disposal of nuclear material on land, and is not the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) confusing two entirely different issues?
Will the Minister define ALARA to the House, because there is great confusion in the industry about what it will mean in practice? Will he also agree to remove the NIREX proposals for the storage of medium-level waste at Elstow and at Billingham, where all political parties in the community have overwhelmingly rejected the proposals, and review the entire NIREX approach to the problem of the storage or disposal of waste?

Mr. Waldegrave: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. One always wishes to help a Member who is confused. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, it is fair to say that although the assessment principles will not be agreed until the autumn, they require my right hon. Friend to review the position. The matter is not closed.

Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)

Mr. Nicholls: asked the Secretary of the State for the Environment if he will consider adding to the list under class 1 of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972 as No. (vi) a Pharmacy.

Mr. Macfarlane: No, Sir. Pharmacies are in planning terms no different from other kinds of shops in class I. In any case, the amendment my hon. Friend suggests would not mean that planning permission was needed to use a shop as a pharmacy, unless a material change of use were involved; a change of use of this kind would be unlikely to be material.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend accept that one of the consequences of the present position is that if a hypermarket in say, Newton Abbot, in my constituency of Teignbridge were to be given planning permission for general shop use it would automatically have permission to use a pharmacy? The effect of that would be that, far from encouraging healthy competition, the rural pharmacies might be forced to close and many people who would benefit from the sort of personal service that a rural pharmacy can give would then be deprived of that service entirely, which would be not only to their detriment but to the detriment of the community as a whole?

Mr. Macfarlane: I fully understand the concern and the problem facing my hon. Friend in his constituency. I am totally sympathetic to that. However, I have indicated that planning controls over individual kinds of shops or types of goods sold would not be desirable. The availability of pharmacy services is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I am more than happy to act as a catalyst for that, if my hon. Friend so desires.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received about the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill since the Second Reading debate on 11 April.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have received just over 80 representations since the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Boyes: I guarantee that when I ask the Secretary of State what the balance was he will tell me that most of them were against the measures, because in the local elections in my area, as I mentioned earlier—[Interruption.] This is the best evidence possible of what is happening and what people feel about these things. It is how people put their crosses in the ballot boxes that matters. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative Sunderland Echo said:
As the Prime Minister notched up her fifth year in power, the electorate turned … locally to her political opponents" 
—as they will more in the coming years, until Conservative Members are in opposition.

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure that I have wholly hoisted on board the obviously important point that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make to the House. I should like to assure him, however, that, despite a number of orchestrated responses that have been got up in campaigns by some authorities, there have been a number of helpful and constructive suggestions, and we are taking them fully into account.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of great regret that Opposition Members constantly ask us to believe that local elections, which should be held on the basis of local government and local opinions, are nothing more than a sounding board for opinions on a quite unrelated matter. Does he not agree that we should interpret local election results on a local basis, and not continually use them to pray in aid for some other issue?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. Indeed, the fallacy to which he has drawn attention is fed by those electoral pundits who say that if this result were carried over into the national elections the leader of the Opposition would be in No. 10. These things are thoroughly false.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Michie: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his full summary of the responses made to Cmnd. 9063.

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to publish the further report dealing with the views expressed on certain aspects of the proposals in Cmnd. 9063, referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) of 9 April, Official Report, column 75; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The further report was made available on 4 May.

Mr. Michie: If this legislation must go through, improvident though it may be, not only sacking democratically elected councillors, but perhaps many hundreds of loyal government workers, how much time is the Secretary of State prepared to give to those people for proper consultation and hope for a fair hearing?

Mr. Jenkin: I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be as much consultation as those whose views have been sought are prepared to undertake. I reiterate once again my appeal to those local authorities, trade unions and other organisations which have so far refused to engage in proper consultations with my Department. Now that the paving Bill has received its Second Reading, this is the moment to start talking, and I hope that those who have so far refused to do so will now consider that, in the interests of the people who work in the authorities concerned, they should start to talk.

Mr. Flannery: Are not the Government determined that the little business known as democracy should not interfere in any way with their intentions? Will they not go ahead regardless, just as they have done practically every time, using their false majority in the House, because they have lost that majority among the people? Are they not detemined to carry on regardless, while not allowing democracy to interfere in any way?

Mr. Jenkin: A great many people connected with local government in the areas concerned believe that making local government more local, and returning powers to the local area, is more democratic than having large regional, remote authorities.

Palace of Westminster (Power Supplies)

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to prevent a repetition of the power failure in the Palace of Westminster on 3 November 1983.

Sir George Young: The modernisation of mains switchgear has now been completed, and a new transformer installed. This enables the palace to be connected to an independent, reliable, stand-by supply within a few minutes.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in the event of a prolonged national power cut, the emergency systems are adequate to supply the needs of the House?

Sir George Young: As a result of the steps that we have now taken, I hope that it will be possible, within about eight minutes of a power failure, to reconnect the sytems within the House and to enable the business of the House to continue. I understand that my hon. Friend visited all the engineering installations in the Palace of Westminster about two months ago as a result of the power failure last November, and I am grateful to him for taking such an interest in this matter.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the best way of ensuring that there are no power cuts in the Palace of Westminster, or anywhere else, is to call upon the chairman of the NCB to stop his pit closure programme, and then the Secretary of State will not have to go on television, as he did in 1972, telling people to clean their teeth in the dark?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has raised much broader issues that my modest responsibilities allow me to reply to. All I can say is that if there is a power failure in the Palace of Westminster we now have an independent generator, which should enable the hon. Gentleman to continue asking Ministers questions, even if the power fails.

Cathedrals and Churches (Damage)

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate a study on the potential damage inflicted on cathedrals and churches of historic interest by environmental factors.

Mr. Waldegrave: My Department has supported a number of studies of the effects of air pollution on historic buildings. Proposals for further work are under consideration.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable evidence to show that substantial damage is being inflicted on cathedrals and churches due to vibrations, which are caused, notably, by increasingly heavy lorries? That problem is being made much worse by this Government's policies. Will the hon. Gentleman take this matter very seriously and institute an independent inquiry into it?

Mr. Waldegrave: Until now the principal research that my Department has been funding has concerned the effects of air pollution on historic buildings. There are new proposals in hand, which include Wells cathedral and Bolsover castle. However, I shall see what research is under way into the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman, and review the matter.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has not much more damage been done to many churches by modernist clergy?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my hon. Friend must have asked me that question before, because he knows the answer that I should like to give.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister conceding that acid rain is damaging many of our historic buildings? If so, will he take a little more action in that regard?

Mr. Waldegrave: As I said in response to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), that is the principal aim of our research, and we are increasing research in that area. With regard to the Warren Spring report, it is very important to get coverage of information into urban as well as rural areas. The Department is reviewing that matter.

Ordnance Survey

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that there is fair competition between the commercial operations of Ordnance Survey and the private sector map publishers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern among private sector map producers about what they believe to be unfair competition from the Ordnance Survey? Can he confirm that an independent review will take place of the joint venture publishing enterprises in which the Ordnance Survey is a partner? Will that independent review take evidence from the private sector map publishers?

Mr. Waldegrave: I met a delegation of independent map makers, with colleagues in the House, recently—

Mr. Flannery: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Flannery.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the passion for privatisation by this Government—

Mr. Waldegrave: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister had finished. I apologise.

Mr. Flannery: The Minister is such a master of the monosyllable that we do not know when he is finished.

Mr. Waldegrave: I was telling my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that we had recently received a delegation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to publish guidelines on the commercial activities of the Ordnance Survey. I hope that that will help the independent map makers. I have recently asked the director general of the Ordnance Survey to call in outside accountants to examine internal accountancy and management procedures, to ensure that there is no cross-subsidisation between commercial and other activities. I hope that that will help to still the doubts to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Minister accept that his constant monosyllabic answers leave the Chamber with the same lack of knowledge that is had before the question was


answered? Will the Government's passion for privatisation destroy the Ordnance Survey, which was doing a wonderful job long before this Government came about? In heaven's name, why are they altering the Ordnance Survey, which was acceptable to everybody except those who wanted to make profit out of privatisation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman—who does not like short questions or short answers—missed the recent announcement that there would be no change in the status of the Ordnance Survey. It has done excellent work for many years and will continue to do so for many years. If the hon. Gentleman reads my right hon. Friend's statement on the matter recently, he will be the wiser.

Mining Dispute (Social Security Benefits)

Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the new rulings made by the Department of Health and Social Security which are depriving the wives and children of miners now engaged in an industrial dispute of social security benefits to which they are legally entitled.
The matter is specific because an unprecedented and dubious ruling has been made under which loans legitimately given by Scottish social works departments for the relief of temporary destitution are, for the first time, being defined as income and are being deducted from already meagre social security benefits. There is no basis for that ruling in law or regulation, or in anything approved by the House. The matter is important because people already receiving less than anyone else on social security will become still poorer.
Briefly, a miner's wife whose husband receives nothing and who herself receives only 92p a day and is driven to seek loans from the social work department will lose almost all her social security benefit and, on top of that, still have to repay the loans.
More important, the state having minimised its responsibility for the relief of poverty in such circumstances seeks to nullify assistance from other sources. Under the new ruling local authorities, discharging responsibilities laid down by the House, are effectively barred from their duty to relieve immediate destitution. Even charities cannot help. Their gifts can also be calculated as income and be deducted.
The matter is urgent because hundreds of families already impoverished are being subjected to even greater misery, uncertainty and destitution. Mothers and children are now £20 or £30 a week worse off than they would be if the father had deserted them or were in gaol. No one can help. Not only has state help been withdrawn by a law made in 1980, but the help of others is being denied by a new ruling invented in 1984. When the suffering of mothers and children is the issue, this Government are not only walking by on the other side of the road; they are going behind the House's back by ruling against good Samaritans.
The matter is specific, urgent and important because a shameful decision has been made and shamefully translated into action without the House being informed or consulted. Local social security officers have received instructions from Whitehall only by telephone. There is nothing in writing, nothing in regulations, nothing in previous rulings and certainly nothing in the statutes approved by the House. Without the knowledge of the House there has been a sinister distortion of the spirit and letter of decades of social security legislation. A long established practice has been totally disregarded and a new and deeply offensive principle has been invented and applied deliberately to exacerbate poverty and hardship. The House must debate the matter urgently.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the new rulings made by the Department of Health and Social Security which are depriving the wives and children of miners now engaged in an industrial dispute of social security benefits to which they are legally entitled.
The hon. Member will understand that the decision I have to make is whether to give this matter precedence over the business already set down for today or for tomorrow. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This does not arise out of your decision but because my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has said that the House has not heard of the changes that have been made, apparently over the telephone. The House has not been informed. No Minister has answered at the Dispatch Box for the change in regulations.
What advice, therefore, can you, Mr. Speaker, give to hon. Members on this side of the House who are urging support for the miners' families so that the miners are not starved into submission and are not treated worse than murderers in regard to financial assistance? What advice can you give to ensure that before today is over a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and explains how the Government have managed to cook the books in this matter?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we can dispose of the matter because we have a very heavy day in front of us. It is not for me to advise the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced parliamentary operator.

Mr. Skinner: That is why I did it.

Mr. Speaker: If I may offer him exceptionally a piece of advice, perhaps he would have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who has today's Adjournment debate.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, when an hon. Member makes an application under Standing Order No. 10, it is normal practice for one Minister at least from the Department concerned to be present. Does it not show the utter contempt felt by the Minister for Social Security., the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), that he has not come to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) arguing his case about the hardship being caused?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that I am in no way responsible for who is on the Front Bench at any time.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important issue, otherwise I should not refer to it. I have had the same problem in my constituency. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said. There is no Minister from the Department here to listen. You, Mr. Speaker, have made it clear that


you have no responsibility, and we accept that. However, my hon. Friend has wasted his time unless we can have an assurance that the point is brought to the attention of the Leader of the House or of the Department concerned so that at least we know that the facts of the matter will be considered.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): If it is of help to the House, I can assure the right hon. Member that I shall give to my colleagues an account of the points made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (Amendment)

Mr. Michael Hirst: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 to introduce similar procedures in relation to stopped cheques and to cheques drawn on an account with insufficient funds in Scotland as apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I wonder how many hon. Members have threatened to stop a cheque in the course of a dispute that they have had with a trader. I have threatened to stop a cheque but have never done so, which is perhaps just as well because such a thing can have unpleasant and unintended consequences in Scotland.
This matter was brought to my attention by a constituent who countermanded a cheque in the course of a dispute with one of his suppliers. He then found to his dismay that the value of the cheque was charged to his account and an equivalent sum was transferred by the bank to a suspense account. The funds effectively were frozen and, worse still, earned no interest during the time that they were held in suspense.
My constituent drew this matter to my attention, challenging me to find out whether his perception of the law was correct. My researches confirmed that his bank was correct and was acting strictly in accordance with the law of Scotland. The Bills of Exchange Act, which was enacted 102 years ago, included a provision that applied only to Scotland. Under that provision, when the customer of a Scottish bank countermands a cheque, the value of the cheque is charged to his account and an equivalent sum is put into a suspense account at the bank. The funds can be unfrozen only with the consent of the trader or payee to whom the cheque was originally made out, by an expensive and time-consuming legal process, or, finally, after a five-year prescriptive period. During that time, no interest is earned on the frozen funds.
There are numerous distressing examples of the operation of that legal anomaly. The trader's consent to unfreeze the funds can sometimes be unjustifiably withheld, especially where there may have been a history of an acrimonious trade dispute. Those affected by the provisions have frequently complained that they knew nothing about it, nor were they advised by their bank of the consequences of stopping the cheque.
I hope that I am not being unjust to the Scottish banking fraternity when I say that I have a suspicion that some bank managers may not be aware of the provision, or that they may not enforce it. Nevertheless, that anomaly, first put on the statute book by this House 102 years ago, remains and is the substantive law in Scotland.
My Bill seeks to eliminate what is obviously an anomaly that prejudices Scottish people. It seeks to bring the law into line with that operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom — which is that when a cheque is stopped no payment is made against the cheque out of the customer's account and the funds remain in that account.
I must make it clear that in the event of a cheque being countermanded under the provisions in the Bill there would be no alteration to the fundamental obligation between trader and customer, and legal remedies would be available to the trader against a dishonest consumer. It


could be argued that the existing system in Scotland has prevented the malicious stopping of cheques, but I am at pains to suggest that there can be little validity in that argument as so few Scots appear to be aware of the precise legal implications of stopping a cheque. I must confess that, even though I have legal and accounting qualifications, I was unaware of that legal provision. I consulted one of my hon. Friends who practises as a lawyer in Scotland, and he was similarly unaware of the provision. There is no evidence that the freer system that operates south of the border has led to any abuse by malicious or dishonest consumers.
There is a further unfortunate consequence of the legal provision which, as section 53(2) of the 1882 Act, applies only in Scotland. If a customer draws several cheques at the same time and does not have sufficient funds in his account to meet the total of the cheques, the bank cannot pay out on some of the cheques up to the balance in the customer's account. Instead, the bank is obliged to refuse payment on all the cheques and to transfer whatever balance is in the customer's account to a suspense account. Again, the suspense account would bear no interest and to unfreeze the account the customer must obtain the consent of each of the traders or payees in whose favour the cheques were originally drawn.
I contrast this cumbersome procedure with the far more simple and equitable procedure which operates in England by which the bank will honour part of a series of cheques up to the value of the funds in the customer's account, subsequently dishonouring only when the account is deficient of funds and can no longer meet any outstanding cheques.
It is, perhaps, surprising that there has not been a greater outcry about this matter in Scotland. Nevertheless,

the Scottish Consumer Council has been in the vanguard of the movement for legislative amendment to bring the law and practice in Scotland into line with that of England.
Understandably, Scottish bankers also feel unhappy about the situation. Our predecessors here a century ago could hardly have realised how section 53(2) of the 1882 Act would create problems for bank customers in 1984. The present legal position does nothing for good relations between bankers and customers, and the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers has confirmed that it generally supports the intention of my Bill.
I hope that the House will agree that this is a small but significant legislative change which will remove the discrimination that presently exists against Scottish bank customers, and I therefore hope that the House will grant me leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Hirst, Mr. John Corrie, Mr. Tom Clarke, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Gerald Malone, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Hugh Brown and Mrs,. Anna McCurley.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Michael Hirst accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 to introduce similar procedures in relation to stopped cheques and to cheques drawn on an account with insufficient funds in Scotland as apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF INTERIM PROVISIONS

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 2,in page 1,line 9, at end insert
'and no such order shall be made where it has been resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the re-organisation of local government in Greater London or in the metropolitan counties as a matter of urgent public importance, pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): It will be convenient to consider at the same time the following:
Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
'and no such order shall be made before the Secretary of State has, pursuant to section 49 of the principal Act, directed the English Commission to review the areas of Greater London and the metropolitan counties and has laid before each House of Parliament an order to give effect, with or without modification, to proposals formulated and submitted to him by the Commission under sections 47 or 48 of the principal Act'.
Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
'and no such order shall be made until:

(a) the Audit Commission have inquired into and published a report on the cost of implementing proposals for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and for the transfer of their functions to other bodies; and
(b) those costs have been reported to an accepted by each House of Parliament.'
Amendment No. 72, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
'but no such order shall be made until a Royal Commission to inquire into the re-organisation of local government in Greater London and in the areas of the metropolitan counties has issued a report on that matter.'
Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 10, after 'may', insert
'and in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (5) below, shall'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'subsection (2) above' and insert 'this section'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 11, at end add—
`(5) The circumstances specified in subsection (2) above are that—

(a) a Bill for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and for the transfer of their functions to other bodies—

(i) has not been read a second time in the House of Commons before 16th November 1984; or
(ii) has not been passed into law before 28th February 1985.
(b) it has been resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the re-organisation of local government in Greater London or the metropolitan counties as a matter of urgent public importance, pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921;

(c) the Audit Commission has inquired into and published a report on the cost of implementing proposals for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and for the transfer of their functions to other bodies, and those costs have been reported to and accepted by each House of Parliament.
New clause 2—Duration of Part II—
`Part II of this Act shall cease to have effect as from 1st April 1986 and thereupon any enactment repealed by this Act shall revive.'.

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. May I raise with you, a question about the selection of amendments, in particular the decision not to select amendment No. 1, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends? We regard that as an important issue of principle which the Committee should have an opportunity to debate. It is not clear why it has not been selected, and I seek your guidance on the matter in the hope that perhaps it could be debated at some other point in the proceedings.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I wish to make the same point in relation to amendment No. 5, which stands in my name and which also has not been selected. It is, in my view, an extremely important amendment, and, on the face of it, it is inexplicable that neither amendment No. 1 nor No. 2 has been selected.

The Chairman: I looked carefully at both amendments and came to the conclusion that they were inconsistent with the principles of the Bill, to which the House had given a Second Reading, and were therefore, out of order. However, I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), with their usual ingenuity, will find some way to make reference to those matters in the course of the debate.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. With the greatest respect, surely the kernel of the Bill is dealt with by amendments Nos. 1 and 5. To say in response to that argument that the Bill has had a Second Reading must mean that the House of Commons should never give a Bill a Second Reading because it will never have another chance of raising certain issues. Surely the idea of debating the Bill in Committee is to deliberate on the great issue that is involved, and the non-selection of amendments Nos. 1 and 5 will preclude that deliberation. In effect, Mr. Walker, you are saying that we must try to find a subterfuge. I did not realise that the House of Commons was meant to try subterfuges; I thought that it was meant to try issues.

Mr. W. Benyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. This series of amendments turns on timing, and that is what amendments Nos. 1 and 5 relate to as well. It seems that we shall be out of order if we are not allowed to discuss those amendments and the timing on which they turn whereas we are allowed to discuss other amendments that turn on timing and other issues.

The Chairman: I can only repeat that I considered amendments Nos. 1 and 5 extremely carefully and that I came to the conclusion to which I have already given expression. The Committee will not expect me to enter into a long debate on all the matters which I considered in the course of reaching my decision. I think that the


Committee should move on to discuss the first group of amendments. Doubtless there will be scope to make reference to the substance of amendments Nos. 1 and 5 in the course of the debates that lie ahead.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. As you and the House know, Mr. Walker, it is not part of my reputation to trangress on the good nature of the occupant of the Chair; I have never made a habit of doing that. However, I respectfully ask you, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, to reconsider your decision at some appropriate time. We feel strongly about this issue and its importance to all that follows in the discussion of the Bill. I can put that request no more courteously or calmly; equally I can put it no more strongly.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. One of the difficulties is that the order can be brought forward without any subsequent debate by the House of Commons. There is no provision for it either to be approved affirmatively or negatived.

The Chairman: That is a rather different matter from the issues that have been raised. I am bound to say that I am not dissuaded from my ruling.

Mr. Edward Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. With great respect, the issue is, as has already been mentioned, one of timing. One of the matters that we would want to debate on either amendment No. 1 or No. 5, or both, is that the Secretary of State has already given an undertaking that he will not introduce the order before a certain time, by which he means after the Bill's Second Reading. The issue of timing is one that carries that matter further, for the point at which he will carry through the order is basic to the Bill. I suggest that it is right that we should be given the opportunity of debating that issue in Committee on one or other or both of the amendments which have been mentioned.

The Chairman: It is my task, whatever undertakings have been given by the Secretary of State, to consider the Bill as it is printed and the extent to which the amendments can be reconciled with the contents of the Bill and not with statements made by Ministers, no matter how distinguished they may be. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a matter that lies between him and the Secretary of State. It does not concern my duties.

Dr. Cunningham: Dealing with the amendments, this is unprecedented legislation in terms of the way in which it has been prepared and introduced and in intent. There is a certain irony that we begin our discussion of it following yesterday's events on the river Thames. Her Majesty the Queen officially opened the Thames barrier yesterday. That barrier is not only a marvellous demonstration of British engineering and technology and an example and showpiece to the world, but a tribute to the way in which local government—in this case the GLC—and Government Departments have seen a major and difficult project through to fulfilment. It is sad that, on the day after such a success story for central and local government, including the authority of the country's capital city, working in partnership, we should begin to discuss a tawdry measure to abolish the GLC as well as the six metropolitan counties of England.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that, before any further progress is made, proper inquiries are carried

out. It is unprecedented that a Government of any political party should come to the House with a Bill based on the flimsiest evidence of their intentions. In the past, all Governments have sought to make changes in local government and to advance on the basis of attempts to reach a consensus, usually—this happened in almost every case I recall—following proper, thorough, fundamental and independent inquiries about structure, functions or finance.
None of that happened in this case. The Government have flinched from the inquiries and reports carried out at the instigation of the councils involved. The Government have refused to produce their own properly based analysis of the financial implications of these changes for the taxpayer or the ratepayer.
For months, a number of contentious claims were made, and then abandoned because they could not be substantiated. For example, the Conservative party campaign document of May 1983 claimed estimated savings of £120 million. The Secretary of State has had a year to justify that claim, which he repeated in a document issued through the Government Whips' Office a few months ago. He has flown in the face of all rational argument and ducked out of the business of attempting to justify this action.
The Government have failed to make any substantial response, other than some flights of rhetoric and a little verbiage, to the independent report carried out at the instigation of the metropolitan counties by Coopers and Lybrand. No. hon. Member questions the integrity or competence of Coopers and Lybrand—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do.

Dr. Cunningham: —with the exception of my hon. Friend, although I am not sure of his grounds.

Mr. Skinner: Because it works for the Government.

Dr. Cunningham: I was coming to that point. My hon. Friend, as sharp as ever, is right. The Department of the Environment commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to carry out work on its behalf. The Government have accepted the conclusions. In this case, when the same firm is engaged by the metropolitan counties and probably some of the same personnel are involved in the research and analysis, apparently the results cannot be accepted.
I cannot recall any Minister in any Administration saying that when he or his colleagues engage a company it is held to be fit and proper and its conclusions acceptable but when the same company works for someone opposed to the Government its conclusions are held not to be fit and proper or acceptable. That is rather odd. The position is compounded by the signal failure by anyone in the Department of the Environment, the Treasury or anyone else in the Government to come up with any other credible argument on this matter. For many months the House of Commons has been denied any serious comment by the Secretary of State on the financial implications of these changes.

4 pm

Mr. David Winnick: The Secretary of State has not come up with any alternative to what has been put forward by the metropolitan authorities and the GLC, but what is rather sinister is that, in addition to trying to abolish the elections next year, the Secretary of State clearly has in mind trying to stop the authorities


involved from advertising. If the Secretary of State does that, councils would be stopped from presenting their case to the public. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear why advertising so annoys the Secretary of State: it is effective and is obviously making great appeal to the people. The Secretary of State has no effective counter arguments and therefore he wants to try to stop it—

The Chairman: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for making that point. Councils are not simply to be condemned without proper trial or inquiry; apparently they are also to be prevented from having their case heard by the people who elected them. That is the height of iniquity. It comes ill from a Government and a party which made so much of the media in their own election campaign to say that democratically elected authorities—

Mr. Richard Tracey: That is different.

Dr. Cunningham: The principle is the same. It is to tell people the main issues. Elected councils of the size, scale and importance of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils have every right not just to commission reports, as they have; they have the duty to tell people in the areas that they govern, who voted for them, what is involved, what the implications are and what is at stake for them and their areas.

Mr. Tracey: Surely we must differentiate between political parties spending money on advertising which has been collected from their members and the expenditure of ratepayers' money in the most ridiculous fashion by the metropolitan counties and the GLC.

Dr. Cunningham: I cannot accept that, particularly when I remind myself and the Committee that, in a minute to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State proposed that he should set up a propaganda unit in his Department paid for by taxpayers' money. The proposal was rejected, and we have something slightly different from Mr. Bernard Ingham. In the Ministry of Defence we have effectively had a propaganda unit for the Government's policies paid for by the taxpayer.
To what principle do Conservative Members object or defend? They can do all these things for themselves, but the Opposition or or colleagues in local government are to be denied them. Is that what the hon. Gentleman asks us to accept?
The Secretary of State is upset because the GLC and the metropolitan authorities have secured a major success in influencing opinion and convincing people that these changes were not in their best interests. As recently as yesterday I looked at the latest opinion survey in London which showed that about 80 per cent. of the people in the GLC area are now opposed to what the Government are doing. That is a massive figure. The majority of Conservative voters opposed what the Government were doing.
The Secretary of State is worried that he has been rumbled by the people. That was demonstrated in the west Yorkshire local elections last week. There were large swings to the Labour party and Labour councilors on these issues.

Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to contribute to the point which has been made about advertising. The chairman of the National Coal Board is advertising extensively in coal mining areas to tell people why they should return to work. That is coming from the taxpayers' purse, but there is no comment about it from the Conservative party. Will my hon. Friend take that on board?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall not just take the point on board; I will agree with my hon. Friend.
I do not even concede the argument that what has been done has been done on a party political basis. Much of the advertising campaign has been directed to people's rights to vote and choose the councils that they want to carry out the policies for which they opt. Much of the advertising has been in defence of the services provided by successive administrations of different political persuasions in London and elsewhere. It has not been on a party political basis. Those are the issues that have been brought home to the people—the fundamental questions embodied in the Bill; that people will be denied the right to vote next year, and that the political control of their capital will be changed without a single vote being cast. Those are unprecedented issues.

Mr. Harry Cowans: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the Committee what all the fuss is about. The section that allows advertising is contained in the Local Government Act 1972, introduced by the Conservative Government. It legalises local authorities' power to advertise and impart to the public information on local government. What is the fuss about?

Dr. Cunningham: I wish sometimes that my hon. and good personal Friend would stay away from some of these debates, because he always pinches my best lines. I hasten to say that, as ever, he is welcome, and I appreciate his support. He is right. The powers, which are being properly used, were introduced by a Conservative Government in one of their local government Acts.
The Secretary of State and some of his hon. Friends and Back Benchers voted for the proposal. They did not raise any of these points then. On the contrary, they said that these were proper powers, with limits on funding, and that local government should be trusted to use them in the best interests of the public. Now apparently the boot is on the other foot.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am paying close attention to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I understand his point. Does he think that the substantial expenditure by the Greater London council on literature for delivery in the streets of London—literature that opposes the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—fits his description of fair and reasonable? The GLC is not a police authority, but it is using ratepayers' money to oppose a Bill that is before the House. I quote that as one example. As a Conservative Member who believes in the fair, reasonable and responsible behaviour of local authorities, that seems to me to fall rather outside the hon. Gentleman's definition.

Dr. Cunningham: I am not familiar with the literature being used in the campaign against the Bill because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not involved. If he feels that that literature is an abuse of this power, that will be a matter for the courts to decide. I assume that the GLC,
which contains very clever people — whatever Conservative Ministers feel, they do not underestimate those people — will have obtained legal advice about whether it is correct and proper for it to do that.
One of the ironies of life is that the Government have elevated my friend and Socialist colleague, Ken Livingstone, and his colleagues into something like folk heroes in London. Even many of us in the Labour party would not have thought that likely a short time ago. The reality is that all the Government's posturing and huffing and puffing has backfired on them because this was part of their Act anyway. They were the people who set down in statute the powers and provisions that are being used.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure whether all the interventions are because this is a contentious speech or because it is an interesting one.

Mr. Banks: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am gald that he did not put an exclusion order on me. Would he be interested in the answers to a series of questions that I put down recently, which show that Government Departments are spending more than £20 million a year on advertising? Whether or not one considers that to be party political advertising will depend on one's political position. In the circumstances, will my hon. Friend accept that what is sauce for the goose clearly must be sauce for the gander?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend, who is a member of the GLC, has obviously done some systematic and thorough research into all these issues. Not only do the Government spend all that money on advertising to support their case, but they have one of the most effective, well-drilled and well-oiled information machines in any Western industrial democracy. That is to set aside the institutionalised business of Government by inspired leak. If we were to put all these things on the balance sheet, the balance would be heavily in favour of the Government, the party in power and Ministers. That makes it even more objectionable to have to listen to the protests about an attempt to redress the balance in the great argument about what are important issues and principles.
4.15 pm
As with the financial and economic arguments about this Bill and the proposed changes, so with the argument about the real role, structure and functions of local government through the metropolitan counties and the GLC. No inquiry has been carried out and no proper examination has been made. The Secretary of State criticises his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for saying on Second Reading that there had been an inquiry when these councils were set up, but the Government had not done anything about the principal recommendations.
One can forgive that because a lot of evidence, inquiry and investigation has taken place, and no Government is bound to accept, lock stock and barrel the outcome of any such investigation. At least an inquiry had taken place. All the arguments were out in the open, all the evidence was there, to be debated and discussed before the changes were made. Nothing remotely like that has taken place; nothing at all has happened. A hastily cobbled together manifesto commitment forms the foundation on which these changes are now being put to the Committee.
The changes should not proceed until these matters have been properly addressed and the Committee has had the opportunity to see independently provided evidence of what will be the result. That is so reasonable a request, so modest a proposition, that, in any normal circumstances, it would gain majority support almost without argument and dissent.
What has happened to the Conservative party in Parliament that it is willing to see these matters dragooned through Parliament without a vestige of evidence to support the Government's case? That is a matter for considerable dismay on my part, as someone who was elected to be a local councillor and who worked happily and enjoyed local government experience before coming here, and, in their heart of hearts, for many right hon. and hon. Conservative Members. It will be too late when the Bill has been passed to say that they did not really mean all these things to happen and they did not really mean this non-elected undemocratic control over services to occur, or these extra financial burdens to fall on the ratepayer and the taxpayer.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman address the most important subject of all to most of us —what is to happen to the functions that the authorities are abandoning? Does he agree that the great problem is that, although these functions will go to so-called elected bodies, the bodies will not be directly elected but will be nominated and the democratic process will become tenuous and bureaucracy will become heavy? Many of us did not support the metropolitan counties when they were set up, and we are now worried that all the functions that were lopped from the great cities are not going back to them. It would alter the opposition of many of us if the police and fire services went back to the authorities whence they came, and which they discharged very efficiently. Will the hon. Gentleman tackle that question?

Dr. Cunningham: We intend to tackle this subject, but on later amendments.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: These are fundamentally important issues.

Dr. Cunningham: I agree.
The Secretary of State repeated another error as recently as Question Time today, when he said that these functions and services were to go back to local councils. That is patently untrue. The Secretary of State goes on saying that, but I do not know why. He has no foundation for saying so. They will go to ad hoc bodies, boards or quangos—

The Secretary of State for the Envionment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Not quangos.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State can call them what he likes, but we all know what they are in reality. Who is worried about the nomenclature? They are appointed; they are not elected boards. Why is the Secretary of State so pedantic about it? Everyone knows the reality of the situation.
Even in those cases where the services will go to organisations with seconded or appointed councils in control, they will not effectively be in control. None of those people will have been elected to oversee or administer these functions or services, and few if any of them will have any experience of them. The nature of the organisations will ensure that a non-elected administrative


elite will be the real decision makers—the antithesis of democratic local government. That is the reality of what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. If he objects to use of the word "quango", let him suggest some other word; but I do not think that he will convince anybody of the difference.
The Opposition believe that an inquiry into functions should take place. We would accept any one of a number of possible avenues of investigation into the questions of finance and structure, as is clear from our amendments. We believe that an inquiry would come out heavily against what is being proposed. But even if it did not, the Government and the House would know that they were making decisions in the best possible way, with the facts being on the table for discussion and decision, which is not the case at present.
We believe that it would be iniquitous to abolish the elections next year and to ask the House to take such a step before we have any idea of what the main Bill will contain.
We do not know yet whether the House will agree to the main Bill. Parts of the paving Bill that can be discussed later are written on the assumption that the main Bill will be agreed by the House. That is the implication of some of the later parts of the Bill. It is colossal effrontery to ask the House to approve the Bill and in turn to give support to a Bill that it has not even seen, let alone understands, and does not want to support.
If the Government are so convinced about the force of their case and the strength of their arguments, and believe that they have public support for what they are doing, they should put it to the test and let those in the main conurbations and London express a view. About 18 million people are affected out of 31 million voters, almost one third of the country's population. People are being robbed of their votes. There is no doubt about that. The Opposition feel very strongly that the elections should be allowed to go ahead.
It is clear from a detailed consideration of the Bill that there is no time limit on its provisions. What does that mean? If the Bill is accepted by the House and the main legislation is delayed, amended or rejected, these provisions go on indefinitely; the Bill's proposals will obtain without limit. We do not regard them as acceptable. We certainly do not agree that there should be no limit on their application, and no requirement to come back to the House. Without another Act there would be no way of changing what would then be the status quo.
I ask the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends to look closely at new clause 2, because it contains an important point in what seems an innocuous and small adjustment to the Bill that there should be some time limit written into the legislation. We shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 relate to what we regard as defects in the Bill and place a duty on the Secretary of State to make an order repealing its provisions upon the happening or failure to happen of certain events which are specified and set out in amendment No. 10. We see the defects as follows. Clause 1(2) empowers but it does not require the Secretary of State by order to repeal the provisions of the Bill or some of them. The only possible parliamentary control on what the Secretary of State may propose is that the order, if he makes one, will be subject to the approval of both Houses. The operation of the Bill

is not made dependent on the future of the main abolition legislation at all, and would provide that the powers of the Bill may continue indefinitely even if the main legislation fails. The Secretary of State is given a simple discretion as to whether he makes an order. He is not placed under an obligation to make any appeal order. An obligation to repeal, linked to the outcome of the main Bill, is essential and other alternative and important events to trigger such repeal mechanisms are listed in the amendment. All those are matters of detail. I spell them out so that the Secretary of State, if he has not already had them drawn to his attention, will have an opportunity to ask his advisers to consider them. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate they will be clarified.
There are fundamental flaws in what is being proposed. That is why we tabled amendment No. 20 and the amendments associated with it. Some of them, as I said, are matters of detail, and I commend them to the Committee.

Sir Ian Gilmour: One of the chief constitutional objections to the Bill is that the Government are proceeding in the wrong order. They are introducing the measures for the transition before they have told the Committee what the transition is for. They are paving the way before we know where the paving leads.
That important constitutional principle could have been discussed most straightforwardly and easily in the amendments that you, Mr. Walker, in your wisdom decided not to select. However, as I think you hinted, we can get near to the substance on these amendments.
The fundamental objection, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, is that the Government are assuming the passage of the main legislation. They are also assuming the non-existence of the other place because it will be possible for the other place not to follow the diktats of the Government or the wishes of the majority of the House and to throw the Bill out. The Government are just assuming that that this is impossible.
Amendments Nos 1 and 5 would have achieved the objective most easily but the Opposition's amendments come near to achieving the same objective because their object is to slow down the pace of the Government's legislation. The fundamental objection is that the legislation is ill thought-out. We should all be better off if what is proposed were preceded by an inquiry and some knowledge. We could then proceed by inquiry and evidence rather than by error, and little trial, as we seem to be, which is the wrong way round.
To have one of the inquiries that the hon. Gentleman proposed would remove at least one of the weighty constitutional objections to the Bill. The Government intend to brush that aside by saying that they have a mandate to abolish the GLC and metropolitan counties. That is not a good argument, for reasons that I gave briefly on Second Reading and which I shall not go into now. The mandate argument cuts both ways. Although the Government may have a mandate for the main legislation, they do not have a mandate for this Bill, which was not in any way hinted at in the election.
4.30 pm
Moreover, the Government do not have a mandate to proceed with legislation at this time. Nothing in the Conservative manifesto said that the GLC had to be abolished in the next Session of Parliament and that the paving Bill had to go through in this Session of Parliament.
What is the hurry? It is surely far better to get the legislation right than to rush it through and get it wrong, and then try to forget about it for a bit. It will not go away and there will be problems for a long time. Is the hurry because the Government fear elections? I should not have thought so, because, after all, the Government have shown themselves good at winning elections. I fail to see why they should be worried about that.
A further argument for delay is that, if something goes wrong with the main legislation, the position of the metropolitan counties and the GLC will be thrown into a good deal of chaos. In his speech on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
If the main Bill fails at a later stage, an order will be made to restore the elections at the earliest sensible date."—[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 410.]
Of course, the Government would do that, but that surely shows, with respect to my right hon. Friend, a slightly neglectful attitude towards the efficiency of local government, because quite unnecessary chaos would be caused. The GLC and metropolitan counties would have been wound down, or think that they were corning to an end, and would suddenly be turned on again.
There are strong grounds for the Government slowing down the pace of their legislation and improving the quality. There is considerable room for improving the quality. An inquiry of one of the sorts recommended would do nothing but good, and I hope that the Government will accede to it.

Mr. Cowans: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in this debate, which follows a debate on another attack on local government, when the House sat for a long time debating the Government's attempt to stop local authorities managing their own affairs.
This afternoon, the House has been asked to vote for a pig in a poke. Hon. Members are being asked to end the existence of metropolitan county councils without knowing what will replace them. Conservative Members must realise that in trying to stop the elections, they will stand accused of being frightened of them. The only sensible and logical conclusion to which anyone can come is that to be democratic the Government should allow the elections to take place and allow the people to choose. Otherwise, the Government will be laying themselves open to the accusation that they are frightened of democracy and of the people's votes. Without these amendments, the Bill is saying that the Government are frightened of the people voting against the measure that the Government seek to impose upon them. By no stretch of the imagination could that be construed as democracy.
We can all go back a long time and sometimes words come back and we have to eat them. At the Tory party conference in October 1983, the Secretary of State said:
I am a Tory"—
I think that was true—
and I have been brought up as a Tory"—
I think that was true—
and I believe that the burden of proof is upon the man who advocates change, and if he does not satisfy that burden of proof then change should not be made.
[AN HON. MEMBER: "Unfair."] How can it be unfair to quote what a man said and obviously, sincerely believed in? The world should have the measure of that speech, because the Secretary of State can now put those words into practice. Although the Government advocate that people should go the ballot box when they think that they

might win, when they might lose, they cancel the ballot box. That is the democracy that Britain is turning into. We can do anything we like, as long as it is what we are told. We can even vote, if we vote the Government's way. That is the substance of the Bill.
Let me return to the Secretary of State. I should not like to leave him for too long. He has an opportunity given to few people — to substantiate those glowing words, delivered, I am sure, with great feeling at the Conservative party conference, that change should not take place unless it can be justified. The right hon. Gentleman could do that easily by going to the ballot box. Why does he not? the Bill is neither here not there. It is neither nothing nor something. We are asked to put a great deal of faith in the Secretary of State. The Bill is like a piece of elastic. It has no beginning and no end. Depending where one sits, it can be stretched as long as one likes. Those great democrats who advise everyone to go to the ballot box when it suits them have taken away 18 million people's right to express a view by bringing forward a Bill with no beginning and no end. The interim stage could go on for ever, because nothing in the Bill puts an onus on the Secretary of State to restore the elections after a period or to put something in their place.
The Bill insults the House of Commons, because its premise, without the amendments, ignores the fact that the main legislation will depend not only on this House but on another place. If it is not carried, nothing in the Bill will reverse the position. If we cancel the elections and in the interim put in people who are not elected, the Secretary of State is given no power to reverse that situation. He may make an order or he may not. That is the key. There is nothing to bring him back to the Floor of the House after a period.
I know that elected representatives of the people are going out of fashion. According to the Bill, they should be abolished. Hon. Members should be careful because, if they speak too loudly, they will be abolished. If we dare to oppose the views of those who must be obeyed, we shall be abolished immediately.

Mr. Roland Boyes: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Minister said that the Government were abolishing the metropolitan county councils and giving authority to the district councils because they were closer to the people. If the Government do that to the metropolitan counties, Opposition Members should beware of what they will do to our seats.

Mr. Cowans: I agree with my hon. Friend that under the present Government we must watch our seats, our backs, and everything else. The Secretary of State said that the Government would "give" the system to the district councils. I quarrel with him about that because they will force it on them. There were no consultations or discussions, and there is no evidence that the district councils want it.

The reverse point was used by Conservative Members when they introduced the 1972 legislation. At that time they removed many functions from district councils to what they described as the Utopia of the metropolitan county councils. Like a rabbit out of the box, the legislation was the be-all and end-all to solve local government problems. What has happened to that rabbit? We have not eaten the rabbit; it is still alive and kicking.
That is why the Government must abolish it. That shows that when some people make a case, they will use any argument to support it.
I recommend some light reading to hon. Members for the small hours. They should read the minutes of the Committee on the Local Government Bill 1972. The Bill was pushed through at great speed and the then Conservative Government substantiated every dot and comma of it. If hon. Members read that, they will see why this Bill should not be passed. At that time, the metropolitan county councils were greatly acclaimed. According to Conservative Members standing on chairs 8 ft. high, they would bring great rewards for local government. The Conservative Government do not like local authorities which dare to exercise their powers. The only way that the Government can prevent that, is to abolish them. The country has descended to the point where a person who dares to open his mouth and express his thoughts is abolished. That is the reason for the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. We are debating not Second Reading, but a group of amendments starting with amendment No. 2. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks closer to the amendments.

Mr. Cowans: I was coming to the amendments, Mr. Walker. As in many matters, one needs an introduction to make a case. Many of my comments lead to the case for the amendments. Opposition Members are not saying that a Government, of whatever political colour, should not have the right to examine the functions of local government and try to make a better structure. The amendments make a case for consultation and for the matter to be aired and examined. Even local government would welcome a detailed inquiry into every nook and cranny to see whether we could make a better job of it. There is no need to abolish elections to have an inquiry and examine a structure. The amendments seek to replace nonsense with sense. They seek a detailed inquiry, so that all hon. Members can examine the matter before going ahead with it.
4.45 pm
If the Bill is passed, people will be appointed to do the job of elected representatives. My second point is close to that made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). He was worried about who would undertake local authorities' functions because that is not contained in the Bill. This is like reading a book from back to front: relevant matters are not included, but will be in the next legislation, which we have not yet had an opportunity to examine. The Bill will remove at a stroke people who have been carrying out those functions. Many hon. Members think that they have been running them well. They have also gained experience.
We have a metro system in Tyne and Wear. The elected representatives have gained much experience in running it. They have it at their fingertips. They know exactly what they want to do with exactly the integrated transport that they want to maintain. Without the amendments, the Bill will remove all those people with experience. The Secretary of State must consider that seriously.
I gave only one example, but hon. Members could give others. The Bill will remove experienced people, running vital services, and replace them, not with volunteers but

with people who have been given a directive — not because they want it—from the Secretary of State to carry out the functions. Experienced local representatives will be wiped out at a stroke and complete strangers to the job will be set to run this complex system.
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to reflect whether it makes sense to remove experienced people who have gained much experience and to replace them with novices. Our amendment seeks to prevent that, or at least to ensure that some time will elapse before it happens. The elections should not be cancelled until the main legislation is introduced. Those experienced people should not be thrown out of their posts by a decision of the Secretary of State. The House should have an opportunity to discuss the next legislation.
The amendment would allow time for an inquiry across the board, which would give the House a much better opportunity to be informed. At present the House is being asked to vote for a pig in a poke. The Bill is nonsense and will not benefit the people.
Unfortunately, it is likely that the Bill will be carried. Without our amendments the Secretary of State can delay introducing the main legislation for as long as he wishes. He might be forced to leave matters as they stand for some time, and the Bill does not say when the main legislation can be discussed or for how long the interim measures will last. Even if Conservative Members agree with this Bill, surely they would not want people to be forced to run functions that they do not wish to run for ever. Would it not make sense to have a time limit by which the main legislation must be passed? We will not know how Conservative Members will vote until we divide tonight, but even if they cannot support our other amendments, I ask them to consider supporting the one which proposes a timetable for the next legislation. I fear that those who are placed in posts temporarily might be there for a long time unless the Secretary of State is forced to get a move on and bring further legislation before the House.

Mr. O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend agree that the quangos that will be established will be responsible for spending three quarters of the budget of the counties, although they will have no responsibility to the electorate? Will my hon. Friend develop his important point about the length of time that the Secretary of State can wait before he introduces further legislation?

Mr. Cowans: Everyone must examine that central issue. In case anyone is in doubt about it, I should say that I am completely against the Bill, which is undemocratic, does not make sense, and will do nothing for local government. However, I am a realist. As the Bill is likely to be passed, the Opposition must try to amend it so as to remove some of the dangers to democracy in Britain as we know it. One danger is that people will be shanghaied into doing a job for which they did not ask. Fame will be thrust upon their shoulders without consultation. It is the duty of every hon. Member to ensure that that sad and ridiculous position is not prolonged. The Bill should contain a date by which the Secretary of State must introduce the main legislation.
Even if this Bill is passed, it should not be implemented before the main Bill has been passed. That proposal must be desirable to everyone inside the House or outside it, unless they be in mental institutions.
There can be only one logical reason why the Government will oppose our amendment. By a quirk of the


calendar and by pure chance, before the main legislation is likely to be passed, the people we represent will be able to have their say in elections. The obvious reason why the Government will oppose the amendment is that they know that their views are not popular. If the people backed them, they would be rushing to the ballot box. The advertisement in which the local authorities exercised the power given to them by a Conservative Government elicited the fact that the people are against the legislation, but they will not be given the chance to vote on it.
5 pm
I will not bore the Committee with the book of opinion polls. With no stretch of the imagination, I think that 80 per cent. of the opinion polls support the local authorities, and oppose the Government. That is one good reason for the Government forcing through the legislation. Even if the Government's increasingly apparent dogma has to be forced upon the people, there is no reason why, having carried the paving Bill, they cannot delay its implementation until the main legislation comes forward. Whoever winds up for the Government will have to dwell on this matter at some length, because the Committee and the public will take a lot of convincing that the operation of the paving Bill should not be delayed.
The Opposition have, unfortunately, been forced to amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) dwelt on the manifesto pledges of the Government but only on some of them. The Government appear to pluck from the manifesto what they want uncovered at a particular time.
I hope that people will remember that the Conservative party pledged to set local government free from the heavy hand of Socialism. What happened to that manifesto pledge? I suppose that nothing sets one freer than abolition, but that is not how the Government intended that pledge. Without any shadow of doubt, local government is being abolished. When one has the majority, it is easy to abolish something, and there is no end to it once one starts. The Government may soon see it as a good idea to abolish general elections.
The amendments seek to take some of the sting out of the Bill, if that is possible. The Bill is totally unnecessary, and it could have been tested at the ballot box. If the Government had won, I would not have liked it, but at least it would have been democracy. However, those who are frightened of democracy seek to tear it down, and to prevent the people from speaking. With the amendments, at least the worst parts of the Bill will be delayed. That will give the House and the other place an opportunity to pass the main legislation before any elections are abolished.
The Secretary of State has a great opportunity today to recall his words to the Tory party conference in October 1983, and to prove that the change is necessary. If he cannot prove it, he should abide by the maxim that he set himself: if one cannot satisfy the burden of proof that change is necessary, then change should not take place.

Mr. Rippon: There were times when I thought that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) was trying to talk out the Opposition. However, although he repeated his point frequently, I am bound to say that it is a good point. In my view, the Bill is not well timed or well considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) referred on Second Reading, and today, to the doctrine of the mandate. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will

not dismiss all the anxieties that are expressed about the Bill simply by saying, "We have a mandate." The Lord Chancellor has written that any Government who are guided by the false doctrine of the mandate are a Government to say of whom that they are an elective dictatorship is not necessarily a misjudgment. In fact, he said, it is not a contradiction in terms.
We were very anxious to attack the doctrine of the mandate when Mr. Kenneth Livingstone suggested that the Socialist-controlled Greater London council had a mandate for doing what it liked about London Transport, and imposing whatever level of fares it thought right. Subsequently Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, in the case of GLC v. Bromley said:
It seems to me that no party can or should claim a mandate and commitment for any one item in a long manifesto. When the party gets into power, it should consider any promise or proposal afresh, on its merits, without any feeling of being obliged to honour it or being committed to it.
That seems to me the right and proper attitude to adopt. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesharn and Amersham also pointed out, there is in fact nothing in the Bill that the Government can claim is covered by the mandate. The manifesto, referring to rate capping, and to the abolition of the GLC, and the metropolitan authorities, did not say how it should be done or when it should be done, or provide that there should be a paving Bill without anybody knowing where the pavement would lead. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not dismiss a El the anxieties about the Bill as something that can be dealt with simply by referring to the mandate.
I have no objection in principle to rate capping local authorities where it can be proved that there is an abuse of powers, and where the Secretary of State does not take more power than is right or appropriate. I have no objection to the abolition of the GLC or of the metropolitan county councils. I have no objection to changing the boundaries or the functions of local government. This can be done on many grounds, but there ought to be some grounds on which it is done, and some explanation of what abuse of power there has been to justify a change in the boundaries and in the functions. It has been well said that he goes furthest who knows not whither he goes. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes some comfort from that thought.
I think that it would be wiser to contemplate, as the amendment suggests, some form of review as to what will happen after the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are abolished. After all, this was envisaged in the 1972 legislation. Many people consider that that was not very good legislation, and that it was not carried out in the right way. Why then repeat all the mistakes, if mistakes one thinks there were? Such as it was, the 1972 Act envisaged after 10 years—and it is just about due now —a review of the boundaries and of the functions. Why not allow that review to take place? There would then be plenty of time in the lifetime of this Parliament to enact the necessary legislation. That review could be undertaken by a Royal Commission, a tribunal or by something that I used very much to approve of—the local government boundary commission. Such a commission could look at each area on its own merits. There is no reason to suppose that London needs the same structure and functions of local government as Tyneside, and there is no reason why Tyneside should be run in exactly the same way as Teesside or Merseyside.
It would be wise of the Government to accept that many people from all parties who have a good deal of experience of local government are not averse to reorganisation and improvement, but say that it should be considered more carefully. Most of the objections to the metropolitan councils' activities are related to the powers given in the 1972 Act. They relate to abuses with regard to giving the public information and an authority's freedom to help its community or sections of it within the ambit of the so called free twopenny rate.
If those abuses are genuine, they can be looked at, and a very small Miscellaneous Provisions Bill can be introduced. When hon. Members on both sides of the House willingly gave local authorities the power to provide information, they were not thinking in terms of political advertisements. However, it would only be necessary to say that that power to give information does not include newspaper advertisements. In the course of those discussions on how local government gave information, there would probably be a discussion of how Governments give information and which press officers should be charged to the party and which to the Government.
Some people feel that local authorities may be wrong in giving grants to particular organisations. The sort of organisation that is often cited as an example is "Black Babies against the Bomb." The ratepayers of London may object to £50,000 being spent on such an organisation, but on the other hand, they may not object, under the same power, to, say, £l·75 million being given to Covent Garden. There is no widespread evidence of abuse of the power to spend the twopenny rate, but if the Government or anyone else feels, anxious about it, a miscellaneous provisions Bill could deal with the situation very easily. With a penny rate producing about £19 million in London, a lot of fireworks can be let off without really making any difference to anyone's rates bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Rippon: We should get things in perspective. We are talking about the basic functions of local government that absorb the real expenditure. Before changing those functions and boundaries, there should be an independent inquiry or review. The Government should not close their mind to that.
The part of the Bill that deals with the transitional arrangements was certainly not in the manifesto. All the precedents are that where such changes are made, the life of the existing authority is extended. I remember that being done when we changed the date of local elections from November to May, and local authorities were allowed to hold over for those few months. The clerk of a Welsh local authority came to me in June the following year and said, "Mr. Rippon, what shall we do? We have forgotten to hold the local elections." That may have made the case for reorganising local government, in the sense that it was not a very strong authority. I told those involved to pretend that they had tried to hold the local elections and could not find any candidates, and that they should get the county council to fix a new date.
All the precedents extend the life of the existing authority. It is abject, squalid and shameful that a Conservative Government should come forward with a proposal that, whether accidentally or otherwise,

substitutes for a directly elected Socialist authority —which I should like to see the back of — an independently nominated quasi-quango of another political party. There is no way in which that can be justified.
Therefore, the easiest way for the Government to get themselves out of a real difficulty without going back on their manifesto commitment — about which we might have an open mind as to how and when it should be carried out—would be for them to agree that there should be some independent body to review what has happened since 1972, what abuses exist, what is wrong with the present structure, how it can be improved by changing the boundaries, what functions should be transferred from such regional authorities as remain to stronger or larger district councils and on what basis, and whether there is any justification these days for reverting to the 19th century concept of ad hoc joint boards. I cannot see any justification for the present proposals. They are not basically sound. I may be wrong, and I am willing to be convinced of that, but at present I am not so convinced and I cannot see why Government should not accept the amendment and agree to an independent review, by whatever means they think most appropriate. In that way, we may know what we are doing. One thing is certain at present — neither the Government nor anybody else knows what is happening, what it will cost or what the effect will be.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendments deal with two substantive points. As hon. Members have made clear, they deal with the essential tradition and principle that important local government reforms should be preceded by a public consultation exercise, the results of which are seen by the public. The information thus accumulated can then be used by Parliament in reaching a decision.
Just before the present system of government in London, or something like it, was first set up in 1888, there was a review. There was also a Royal Commission when, in the early 1960s, we were about to legislate to set up the GLC. Ten years ago, when we considered legislating to create the metropolitan counties, preparatory investigations were carried out and consideration was given to their creation by independent and objective arbiters. We then considered their conclusions.
The point has been validly made that nothing said by any Conservative candidate standing for election last June suggested that as part of the process of abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties—which was mentioned in the manifesto in as much as that makes the argument valid—the elections that would otherwise have elected people to those authorities next year would be suspended. Nothing was said about asking us to debate a Bill to abolish the elections, without any proper information and in the wrong order, before we had a chance of considering what structures should replace the GLC and the metropolitan counties after their abolition. Neither of those points was put to the electorate. If a Government with 42 per cent. support can claim a mandate for anything, it is certainly not for that.
The amendments suggest that the work of a Royal Commission could be carried out by one of three other bodies: the Boundary Commission, the Audit Commission or by a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry,


(Evidence) Act. Some of the amendments are better than others. The proposal that a tribunal of inquiry is the right body to consider how to reform local government in London and the metropolitan counties is probably not very good. I am not particularly in favour of that proposal because tribunals of inquiry have been used for emergencies of a specific nature, such as the Profumo case.
The second proposal is that there should be a boundary commission review. Normally the boundary commission examines the boundaries themselves rather than the structure of local government, although there have been exceptions. The third proposal is that the Audit ommission should conduct an inquiry. That body is competent to analyse local government reforms in economic and cost terms, but it has other work to do and that job would be a departure from its normal work.
Only two pieces of independent evidence exist so far —the report by Coopers and Lybrand and that produced just before Easter on behalf of some district authorities. They come to superficially, and sometimes simplistically, different conclusions. That is even more evidence in support of the argument that we need a proper and authoritative investigation. The thin White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities" was supplemented by documents, none of which went into costs. The vital questions of how to deal with waste disposal in London or works to prevent flooding, for example, must be costed objectively.
Any evidence that exists has not been made available to the House. The Government have failed to gain support for their proposals from academic and neutral observers. They have not allowed submissions in response to their White Paper to be published. Thousands of submissions have been sent to the Department of the Environment. On many occasions and in different ways hon. Members have asked for the submissions to be made available, but the Government have said no. Probing inquiries have resulted in answers to the effect that disproportionate cost would be incurred by the taxpayer to produce the evidence. I am sure that other bodies would be willing to accept the cost of producing copies of the submissions.
The criticisms implicit in the amendments are that much stronger because the Government have not given us the evidence presented to them. It is most improper for us to proceed further down this road without having had the opportunity to examine the evidence available and for an independent body to examine it.
I have no doubt that many eminent and respectable business men, trade unionists, church people, representatives of community groups and others—people who do not wear political labels round their necks—would be willing to serve on a Royal Commission. I am sure that there are people capable and responsible enough to do that job quickly enough to complete the inquiry exercise in due time.
If the Government do not believe that it is possible to reach a conclusion in this Session of Parliament the argument that the matter should not be rushed through Parliament in such a short time is even stronger. If the implications of abolishing the metropolitan counties in six areas and the Greater London Council are so wide-ranging and far-reaching that more time is needed, we must take that time and take it now. Often this place does a bad job and it has to amend what it has done. When we are dealing

with services that affect people in their daily lives—housing, transport, social services and planning — we must try to do the best job possible.
All sorts of people who are normally Government supporters have already said to the Government that they are going about the matter in the wrong way. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said:
 "It is essential that the task of devising a new structure for London's local government is not rushed. In its present economic state London cannot afford a costly and disruptive reorganisation which does not produce required increases in efficiency and cost effectiveness in its local government.
The school for advanced urban studies, one of two institutes which concentrates on local government and how it works, says that it believes
there remains an overwhelming case for the review of the structure and finance of local government … Abolition cannot be contemplated without full and open investigation and debate around the alternatives.
The Leeds Chamber of Commerce and Industry says:
We find the Government's case that abolition will save money at best unproven.
The Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry says:
More information, however, especially financial information, with a detailed account of other benefits must be produced.
The Town and Country Planning Association says:
The Government has not adduced remotely sufficient evidence to justify either its criticism of the existing structure of metropolitan areas or of its own proposals for change.
As the Secretary of State has been known to say, being a lawyer, a case must be proven.
We support the first amendments. We think the best is that which proposes a Royal Commission to examine the future of local government in London and the metropolitan counties. The second group of amendments suggests that the Bill should not proceed until Parliament has decided, after debate that the GLC and the metropolitan counties should be abolished and what should go in their place. It is no good saying that we can pass a Bill and hold it in suspense without knowing the circumstances in which it will bite and be implemented. There is no precedent for that.
It is no good the Government arguing that we are giving ourselves power when there has been no precedent for such a move. We debated the lack of precedent on Second Reading. From documents printed in The Guardian we know the Prime Minister's view as expressed in internal memoranda circulated among members of the Cabinet Committee investigating the matter. She believes that it is far better to extend the life of the present councils, if one has to take that option, than to replace them by bodies that have been appointed, as opposed to elected. We should examine the manifesto pledge carefully. It states:
The Metropolitan Councils and the Greater London Council have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We shall abolish them and return most of their functions to the boroughs and districts.
I recall well what the Secretary of State said. He said that we needed to give such councils the opportunity to row themselves in. That argument is flawed because they are contemplating giving the power of the present GLC for one year to people who were elected to a totally different body. That can be compared with hon. Members starting their term of office here and ending up serving their time in Strasbourg, which could hardly give our electors the best service. [Interruption.] I hear support for this proposition from the Benches behind me. It is only


because some people, no doubt, do this country a better service there. We do not share the view of some members of the Labour party that we should not be going there.
5.30 pm
Authorities will be sending people to run the Greater London and metropolitan councils in the last year of their term of office when they are least interested in trying to run a new authority. Certainly they will not have time to acquire the competence and the skill to do so. Effectively, the bodies will be run by the officers, who will be very much overworked because they will have to cope with the transitional arrangements. Also, as was clear last time, they will no doubt be concentrating on getting new jobs for themselves because their jobs will be abolished. People from local boroughs, districts and metropolitan areas will be trying to run the six huge metropolitan counties and the Greater London council when they would much rather concentrate on re-election in 1986. It is a badly conceived argument. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister was opposed to the idea when it was debated in Cabinet.
Many countries in Europe have considered what local self-government means. The draft charter agreed by the Council of Europe said that it meant, among other things, that citizens had a right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. It is a bizarre interpretation of that, if we approve the process that the Government appear to be determined to set up, that citizens will be participating in public affairs for a year in the least effective way via nominees from other authorities. That is in no one's interest and least of all is it in the Government's interest —whatever the colour of the Government—because it produces bad administration at local level. That is not what ratepayers and taxpayers want.
The Government have not come clean about whether they are introducing this proposal to reduce waste and inefficiency in local government, which is what they claim, or whether it is to reduce the amount of money spent on public services in local areas, which is what the effect of their proposals will be. Those are the sort of issues on which the public need all the information that they can get because they must be able to see the import of the Government's proposals. Without such information and without a public inquiry and its result in report form to the House we, on behalf of the ratepayers, cannot do a decent job.
We support wholeheartedly this set of amendments and we look to the Government to make a positive response instead of dry resistance, which will only embarrass them as much as they were embarrassed by the inadequacy of their arguments on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago. We want to know whether the Government will accept that it is not necessary at this stage to cancel next year's elections even if they were to go ahead with their proposal to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties by 1986. The argument has not been made that it is necessary. My hon. Friends on the Liberal Bench and hon. Members of other Opposition parties do not think that it is necessary to proceed in this way. The fundamental breach of constitutional tradition can be avoided if the Government proceed in a logical and orderly way. The Secretary of State will make it difficult if he delays until it is too late appointing someone to consider the matter. He could announce today or tomorrow, or perhaps in the middle of

the night, the formation of a body to consider the future of local government in the metropolitan areas and London; that body might consist almost entirely of nominees, as is the Government's usual practice, but that would be better than the present proposal.
We are not only breaking all constitutional precedent but we are being asked, as it were, to legislate in the dark if we proceed with clause 1 unamended. I repeat firmly that if the Government do not accept that they should compromise in the interests of democracy they will be doing a great disservice to all the people who have written to them, all those who are working in the community to provide services, all the officers of local authorities and all the members of all parties of local authorities. They should spell out the implications of their proposals and allow them to be debated before we go further. The Government have an opportunity to do this. They can accept some of the amendments, as voices on all sides have urged them to do. I hope they will heed the voices of experience which accord with what was their view until last June.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Although I intervene at this stage, I am not in any way suggesting that those who are trying to catch your eye, Mr. Walker, should not have an opportunity to do so. If it is necessary, I shall speak again later in the debate. A number of propositions have been put forward from both sides of the Committee which show misunderstanding or difficulty in accepting the propositions behind the Bill. It would be helpful if I were to spell out again as clearly as I can the procedures and the case which the Government make for handling matters in the way suggested in the Bill.
There has been more than a flavour of the Second Reading debate about this first debate in Committee. I make no complaint about that, Mr. Walker, but you have told one or two hon. Members that perhaps they were straying a little beyond the amendments. I do not wish to fall into the same trap, but I shall pick up some of the points that have been made and that go to the wider issue of the merits of the reform that we put forward in the manifesto and that were spelt out in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities". I am very sensitive to the argument that the House is being asked to handle the paving Bill before the substantive Bill which will come before us in the next Session of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in their points of order at the beginning of the debate sought to make the case that we ought not to consider the provisions of the paving Bill, particularly that for suspending the election and having interim councils until the House had passed the main Bill. My right hon. Friend said that we seemed to be assuming that that Bill would be passed and he mentioned what would happen if it were to fall in another place. This goes right to the heart of clause 1. The question of suspending elections arises in later amendments to clause 2. Therefore, I do not wish to deal with that in detail at this stage, save to make the point, which I shall argue more fully on a later amendment, that when there is to be a reorganisation of local government, the precedents are all in favour of suspending elections.
The point that was made firmly in the leader in The Times, which I shall not quote now but of which I shall remind the House later, was that the argument on that issue,


which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and some of my hon. Friends have made, is that the alternative choice of allowing existing councils to run on would have been preferable to allowing the successor councils to nominate. These issues arise later on clause 2; they do not arise so much on clause 1.
I wish to deal with the main issues on clause 1 and the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—do we do this the wrong way round?

Mr. Jack Straw: It is quite untrue for the right hon. Gentleman to say that there are precedents for his proposal to abolish elections and substitute existing councillors with councillors elected for a different purpose. That cannot be allowed to pass. He is proposing to abolish elections and end the term of office of existing councillors and to substitute councillors from other authorities — of a different political complexion in at least one case—and that has no precedent.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman continues to confuse the two arms of the arguments. As I have said on other occasions, I carry some share of the blame that the two arms of the argument have not been sufficiently distinguished. Two separate issues are involved. The first is whether elections should be suspended or cancelled during a reoganisation, and all the precedents are in favour of that. Indeed, the language of the Bill closely follows that of the 1963 and 1972 Acts. The second question, which is quite separate — I quite understand that it provokes fierce controversy — is whether, having suspended the elections, we make the right choice of who should occupy the positions on the councils to be abolished for the 11-month interim period.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I want to develop my argument. The second question arises more directly on a later amendment.

Mr. Wareing: I want to raise a point about precedents. When the old system of local government in the metropolitan areas was abolished, existing councillors were allowed to continue in office running parallel with the new councillors. The last elections for the old councils took place in 1972 and the first elections for the new councils in 1973. During 1973–74 they ran parallel. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to suspend elections one year before the councils are abolished. That is a different matter, and there is no precedent for it.

Mr. Jenkin: I should have resisted the temptation to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because we do not debate those matters until a later amendment. I must again stress that two separate issues are involved. The first is whether elections should be held during reorganisation, and the precendents are all in favour of not holding them. The second is what we do in the interim period, and we shall debate that matter later.
The clause and the amendment raise three crucial issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham asked, do we have this in the wrong order? Perhaps we should ask why we need the Bill now. Could

not these provisions have been included in the main abolition Bill or, perhaps, have been introduced after the main Bill becomes law?
5.45 pm
There are two reasons why the paving Bill is essential if reorganisation in Greater London and the metropolitan areas is to be achieved by 1 April 1986. First, the provisions suspending the elections cannot wait to be included in the main Bill because it would be highly improbable—many hon. Members would recognise that it would be impossible—for that Bill to become law in time to cancel the elections. Of course we cannot cancel elections without putting legislation on to the statute book, and that is the purpose of the paving Bill.
It is no secret that the main Bill will be a substantial piece of legislation that will require—and, I hope, will receive—intensive debate during its passage through the House and another place. The Government reached the view early in their consideration of the matter that there was no way that the main Bill could be on the statute book in time to cancel the elections. Therefore, it was a question of whether the elections should go ahead while the Bill was before the House, or whether we should follow the precedent of cancelling the elections because of prospective reorganisation, and we rightly reached the latter view.
I do not want to repeat what I said on Second Reading, but, as many commentators outside the House have recognised, it would be absurd for elections to be held for a council which, under the provisions of a Bill that would by that time be before the House, would have only 11 months to run, when, with the best will in the world, it would be impossible for the electors to distinguish between who should run the council in the interim period and whether the reform should take place. I see nothing but confusion and chaos in such a process. Therefore, we reached the conclusion—I believe quite rightly—that the answer was to follow the precedents and cancel the elections—

Mr. Straw: There is no precedent.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is continuing to confuse the two issues. If he wants existing members to continue for the ensuing year, he would still have to cancel the elections. There is no way that the existing members could continue without cancelling the elections. That reinforces my point that no one should argue that the existing GLC and metropolitan county councils should continue unless they are prepared to acknowledge that that means cancelling the elections. The only alternative would be to hold elections and, perhaps, have different councillors elected.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is digging a great pit for himself. What is wrong with following the precedent of the Conservative Government 20 years ago, when London borough elections continued to take place until the passage, approval and Royal Assent of the substantive Bill? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not follow the example of the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) 10 years ago, when elections for the county borough councils, the old shire councils and the urban districts continued—even though it was recognised that it was for a time-limited period—until the substantive Bill had been passed?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman persists in arguing the second arm of the issue, which is: the elections having been cancelled, who should occupy the positions in the interim period? If the hon. Gentleman is arguing for the election to be held, he must recognise that that is not in accordance with the precedents.

Mr. Straw: Yes, it is.

Mr. Jenkin: With respect, it is not. There was no election for LCC members or county borough members after a particular date, because the bodies were to be abolished.—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Yes, there was."]

Mr. Benyon: I think that the debate has come to the crunch for many hon. Members. I speak for myself and, I suspect, a number of my hon. Friends, in saying that we absolutely accept that my right hon. Friend must bring in the Bill now to cancel the elections next year. It is the interim arrangements that are sticking in our gullets. We appreciate that that is the second arm of the question, but as clause 1 deals with the timing of the interim arrangement, we must debate it now.

Mr. Jenkin: Knowing that there were later amendments dealing with that aspect, hon. Members have not felt it necessary to deal with the subject fully at this stage. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not deal with the point now. I suspect that there will be an opportunity on a later amendment to deal in depth with the question whether the elections should be cancelled, allowing the councils to run on, or whether the successor bodies should be nominated. I appreciate that there are strong arguments on both sides, and we shall come to them in due course.
Several hon. Members have pointed out—perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will accept this —that there is an overwhelming case for not allowing the elections to happen next year, during a period when the House will be debating the main legislation.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman because a number of important points have been made and I have a lot of ground to cover.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way at this stage.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman cannot face the argument. That is why he will not give way.

Mr. Jenkin: I am perfectly capable of facing the argument. The issue which is worrying hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is one which will arise more directly on a later amendment. I am now arguing that clause 1—if we are to have the Bill at all, remembering that hon. Members have given it a Second Reading—sets out clearly that the provision for suspending the elections will not happen until there is a commencement order. I gave a clear undertaking on Second Reading that that commencement order would not be made unless and until the House had given its approval to the principle of abolition by giving a Second Reading to the main abolition Bill, and I reaffirm that commitment now. If the House rejects abolition at that stage, the May 1985 elections will take place as normal.
Clause 1 also provides that if at a later stage the Bill fails, power exists to repeal the provision and reinstate the elections, and that is in accordance with constitutional practice.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr Jenkin: I hope that hon. Members will allow me to get on with my speech.

Mr. Boyes: What about the letter from the right hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) must not persist if the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that he was not giving way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State is not giving way.

Mr. Jenkin: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) is anxious that I should deal with this point.

Mr. Boyes: May I explain?

Mr. Jenkin: No, I must get on.
In previous reorganisations, councillors were elected to the new authorities before the old authorities had expired —the point made by the hon. Member for Blackburn. The new authorities had no executive powers in the interim period. The old authorities continued to exercise their full range of powers and their serving councillors' terms of office were extended till abolition day; that is, the elections were cancelled and their powers continued until abolition day.
The terms of office has to be extended because, when the elections were cancelled, the new authorities were not in existence. They arrived later; albeit before abolition day. On this occasion, the successor authorities—the London boroughs and metropolitan districts — are already in existence. Therefore, the Bill does not need to extend the terms of office of serving GLC and metropolitan county councillors. Instead, it provides—we shall come to this in clause 2—that the councillors of the borough and district councils will constitute the membership of the abolished authorities for the period between 7 May 1985 and abolition day.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I must get on.

Mr. Boyes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State is not giving way.

Mr. Winnick: Why will the right hon. Gentleman not give way to my hon. Friend?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) may seek to catch my eye later. I shall look out for him.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Are you aware that I am trying to draw attention to a leaked document, Misc/95?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not rising on a point of order. If he has a point of substance that he wishes to make, the correct procedure is for him to endeavour to catch my eye later.

Mr. Jenkin: I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington is making, in view of the document to which he referred, quoting from an article by John Carvel in The Guardian. That point concerned members of the Government, and it is clear that there is room for two arguments. In the end, the Government made their decision. That was the proposal in the White Paper, and we can debate that on a later amendment.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) for making the important point that whichever it is—whether letting the councils run on or putting in the nominated borough and district coucillors —the elections must be cancelled in the first instance. If the elections are to be cancelled, the statutory provision to cancel them must be on the statute book in good time to allow that process to take place, and that is the central case for the Bill. But the safeguard, to which I hope the Committee attaches a great deal of importance, is that that provision will not be activated until hon. Members have approved in principle, by giving the main measure a Second Reading, the abolition of the seven authorities.

Sir Ian Gilmour: My right hon. Friend's argument depends on one premise, which is his deadline for bringing the new authorities into operation. That is a self-imposed deadline. As it is unnecessary it does not meet the argument for the Bill. If he had a later deadline—if he proceeded in a more measured way—this Bill would be unnecessary.

Mr. Jenkin: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend might have doubts about the wisdom of the whole reform. When we announced in the White Paper that we would proceed in this measured way — with a period for consultation, with the paying Bill in this Session and the main abolition measure in the next Session, and with a period after that before the changeover took place—I came under considerable pressure from a number of my hon. Friends who shared the view of the London boroughs and metropolitan district councils, to the effect that that was altogether too slow a timetable and that we should accelerate the whole process so that the changeover could take place on 1 August 1985. I had to reject that argument.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members with London constituencies feel that a long-delayed dispute as to how the abolition of the GLC should take place would not be in the interests of our constituents?

6 pm

Mr. Jenkin: I share that view. I think that it would be wrong to spin out the implementation of the clear commitment that we gave at the time of the general election. We wish to proceed at a measured pace, and if the 1985 elections are to be cancelled it follows as night follows day that a paving Bill will be necessary on the lines of the measure that is before us. I repeat that the commencement order will not be implemented until the House of Commons has given the abolition Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State is proceeding in undue haste and not at a measured pace. A measured pace would involve waiting until the last possible moment to announce the cancellation of the 1985 elections. It is possible, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, for Prime Minsters to call a general election with a minimum of three weeks' notice. Therefore, it cannot be beyond the wit of even this Secretary of State to cancel the elections within four or five months or even four or five weeks. Why do we have to cancel the 1985 elections now? Why can we not cancel them next November or December? The elections would still be six months away if the cancellation were announced next December.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the instrument that will activate the cancellation will be laid next November or December if the House of Commons, in its wisdom, agrees that the abolition Bill should be given a Second Reading. If that is to have Legal effect, the necessary Act must be on the statute book by that time. That is the only reason why we must introduce the Bill in this Session. Without the Bill, we could not effect the cancellation by November or December in the way that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. We must have the necessary Act on the statute book. The procedure in clause 1 will achieve precisely that for which the hon. Gentleman is asking, for it will enable the decision to be taken in November or December. We are merely asking the House of Commons in this Bill to create the power to do that. I repeat the undertaking that we shall not introduce the commencement order until the House of Commons has approved the Bill.
The hon. Member for Copeland and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey sought to argue that the commencement order should not be introduced until there had been a formal inquiry into the merits of the case for abolition. The purpose of the amendments is to hedge part II with so many conditions before it could be operative — a Bill that the House of Commons approved in principle on Second Reading—as in practice to render it nugatory. The sort of inquiry which hon. Members have sought to put before the Committee would be bound to take a long time. I suggest that the purpose of such a procedure is more to delay implementation than to increase wisdom.
A number of hon. Members, including many of those who submitted responses to the White Paper, have argued that there needs to be a wide-ranging review of the structure and financing of local government. That was the purport of an amendment which was moved in another place on the Rates Bill. The Minister for Local Government, my noble Friend Lord Bellwin, has rightly quoted me as saying that it would be unwise to say never. I adopt the expression that one should never say never again. That must be right. It would be foolish to rule out for all time the possibility of a review or a more fundamental reappraisal. Circumstances change and overall considerations might well warrant a review at some stage. However, there has been great pressure for the necessary substantive legislation in the meantime. I referred to that pressure at some length on Second Reading and I do not want to weary the Committee by repeating it.
This is not a moment for a further elaborate inquiry, which would delay a reorganisation of the metropolitan areas. We are discussing action which needs to be taken now. Local government reform was in the manifestos of each of the major political parties at the general election


in various forms. I shall remind the Committee of what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said at the Labour party's local government conference in 1983. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Copeland is not present to hear what his right hon. Friend said, but I understand that he has to attend to other business. This quotation makes some of the arguments that he advanced about the need for an inquiry seem rather thin. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We shall therefore legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all the functions in their area that they can sensibly undertake. We shall, of course, consult carefully and genuinely before we introduce our legislation. However, we shall set up no more inquiries. We shall legislate and we shall legislate so that these reforms will be in force during the lifetime of the next Parliament.
Against that background, it is rather strange that those on the Opposition Front Bench should chide the Government because we have introduced a Bill which is confined to the metropolitan areas and the GLC but which will do precisely what the right hon. Gentleman said.
The arguments have had a full airing in the White Paper entitled "Streamlining and Cities". I hope that it will never be regarded as a cause for abuse that a White Paper is drafted succinctly and sets out the arguments in a straightforward and simple way. There has been widespread consultation since the White Paper's publication and the arguments were debated on Second Reading. I suggest that nothing would be achieved now by an inquiry except a period of expensive and prolonged uncertainty.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is it not possible for an inquiry to be completed in a matter of months, as the Franks inquiry and others on issues of national importance have been, and for us to consider introducing legislation and, if necessary, doing so — for example, legislation prevention of terrorism and official secrets—in a matter of days?

Mr. Jenkin: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he is living in a dream world if he believes that the sort of inquiry which he is advocating could be completed in a few months. There is widespread understanding of the case that the Government are advancing. There was great pressure on this Government and on our predecessors for the reform that we are now submitting. I have quoted local government resolutions and the comments that have been made by a number of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. The Government accepted the case that was advanced and gave an undertaking to legislate as swiftly as the circumstances would allow to achieve a reform that would bring benefits to ratepayers in the metropolitan counties and the GLC area.

Mr. Cowans: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the options open to him. What was the precedent for cancelling elections and replacing duly elected councillors with appointees? Why have the Government chosen to disregard two options to which precedents were attached? One option was to carry on with the elections, as in 1972, and the second option was to suspend the elections and allow the elected members to continue in office until the main legislation found its way on to the statute book.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order, I hope that the Committee will not stray into clause 2.

Mr. Jenkin: I have suggested that the issue raised by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) arises more directly under the amendments that have been tabled to clause 2. Perhaps I can leave the argument until that stage is reached.
It has been said that the House of Commons is being asked to buy a pig in a poke. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said that he disliked being asked to pass the Bill when he did not know the full details. We have said a great deal and spelt out many details about how we intend to carry through the main legislation. Perhaps I strayed a little beyond the rules of order on Second Reading, but I spelt out the provisions we intended to introduce for such matters as the arts, voluntary bodies, the London historic buildings unit, sport, housing mobility and seaside homes. Only last Friday, I answered a long question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) giving details running into more than two columns of Hansard. I was anxious that those matters should be on the record before we reached the Committee debate.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beamont-Dark) that in my answer I said:
We have also decided to provide in the main Bill for the possibility that individual authorities or groups of authorities could be permitted to take over responsibility for fire and police services in their areas, provided that the authorities concerned can demonstrate, once the joint boards have been in existence for a reasonable time, that they could administer the services more effectively and that provision nationally and in the rest of the metropolitan area would not be adversely affected."—[Official Report, 4 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 265.]
Because my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak intervened to say that that was one of the issues to which he attached importance, I hope that he will welcome the fact that the main Bill will include a provision to opt out.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. Has my right hon. Friend seen the report by the chief constable of the west midlands stating that the police could be run properly from Birmingham? Why is it necessary to set up another body, as though it is a matter of some boys on trial, to ascertain whether authorities are sufficiently worthy to take over what should not have been taken from them in the first place if we had not had the wretched Bill in 1972?

Mr. Jenkin: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, which was shared by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
Although the White Paper did not envisage such a right to opt out, we listened to the arguments, not least those from the west midlands district authorities. As I said in my answer on 4 May, we intend to provide in the main Bill a right to opt out after a reasonable period. I hope that that shows the Government's readiness to listen to arguments.
The legislation spells out the main strategy, the changes we propose to make and the cases in which we propose to adhere to the main thrust of the White Paper. I argue, therefore, that the Committee is not being asked to buy a pig in a poke. The Committee has been told a good deal about the provisions of the main legislation. In these circumstances, it would be unnecessary to have the type of inquiry for which arguments have been made.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to make the commencement order subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. That commencement order will activate part II, which provides for the suspension of elections and the appointment of transitional councils. The purpose of the amendment is to put the commencement order on all fours with the procedure proposed in the Bill for repealing the interim provisions and restoring the present position should abolition not go ahead. I suggest to the Committee that it would be unnecessary to make that commencement order subject to an affirmative procedure.
The repeal order may contain transitional and supplementary provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972 or the Representation of the People Act 1983—for example, by the time a repeal order fell to be made, it might be too late to reinstate the local elections which were due in time to hold them in May 1985. In such circumstances, modifications to those statutes might be necessary to provide for elections out of sequence or at a different time of year. As the order is to repeal an Act of Parliament and could contain modifications of other Acts of Parliament, we considered that it was right and necessary that it should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
6.15 pm
The commencement order is a different case. I have said already that it will not be made until and unless the House has given a Second Reading to the main abolition Bill. By then, Parliament will have thoroughly debated the elections issue; the Bill will have passed into law; and the House will have agreed the principle, if not the detail, of the Government's proposals. The commencement order will therefore relate to provisions that will have been already and recently approved by Parliament. In those circumstances, it would be absurd to subject the order to further parliamentary procedure. For such an order, the affirmative resolution procedure is inappropriate and unnecessary. There is a string of Bills under which commencement orders have been made in such circumstances, without the necessity for debate in the House. I therefore resist amendment No. 9.
The hon. Member for Copeland drew attention to new clause 2, saying that the Bill contained no provisions to terminate the power and so reinstate the elections. The operation of part II is closely constrained. It cannot commence, as I have said, until an order is made—and the order will not be made until the House has approved abolition in principle. If the Bill fails, at whatever stage, the purpose of part II ceases to exist and the repeal provision will then take effect under clause 1(2). In those circumstances, the proposed termination provision in new clause 2 is unnecessary. I believe it is more than unnecessary, because at the heart of our approach to this matter has been the belief that the Bill does not prejudge any of the issues of the main legislation. The legislation allows the House complete freedom to decide that matter when the main Bill comes before the House in the next session of Parliament.
If we were to include new clause 2 in the Bill, we would prejudge Parliament's consideration of the main abolition Bill by presupposing the date Parliament would agree for abolition. New clause 2 inserts the date of 1 April 1986 in the legislation. The amendment would prejudge one of the issues that it would be right for the House to consider

without fetter when the main Bill is considered. The new clause is unnecessary, and I urge the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State changes words as he proceeds. At one time he talked about the House and at another about Parliament. He is anticipating what will occur. We understand that the decision will he taken on Second Reading. That is not the decision of Parliament but one made by Conservative Members. Under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman is presupposing the will of Parliament by taking the decision on Second Reading rather than at the final stage, which must be Royal Assent.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not seek to question the Chair's decision on the amendment. The Chairman said at the beginning of the debate that the amendments raising the matter of part II being activated only after the main Bill had become law would be inconsistent with the decision the House had already taken. The amendments were therefore not selected. One might refer to a wrecking amendment, because the measure would render that part of the Bill unnecessary. There are many precedents for action to be taken on the principle of the Bill, provided it is taken lawfully under an Act of Parliament already passed by the House. I accept completely that the House cannot pass a Bill by itself. That is plain.
Clause 1 provides for the repeal of the election provisions if at any time the main Bill fails in another place or at a later stage. The elections will then be reinstated in the way that I have just been describing.
The hon. Member for Copeland based a significant part of his speech on the fact that the Government have not yet put before the House and the country the full estimates of the costs and savings which abolition of the upper-tier authorities is likely to produce. We expect significant savings to arise from the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. We cannot give detailed estimates of those savings at this stage. Elimination of a tier of government is bound to provide scope for reduction in costs, even if most of its operational functions are transferred to other authorities.
The counties cannot be expected to come up with any useful figures. They may have the information. and they can, as they have done, employ distinguished consultants, but they are not the bodies that will carry the responsibility for deciding how services will be organised in the future. That does not imply that the counties are necessarily or excessively self-interested or that their consultants are anything other than independent, but it is difficult to envisage any institution that would be prepared to say publicly that its job could be done a good deal more cheaply by someone else. For that reason, it is much more important to consider the views of the successor authorities —the districts and the boroughs. They will take over directly most of the services, and through the joint boards they will also be responsible for the major services that the counties now run.
For the moment, the boroughs and districts can only make tentative estimates. The counties have most of the information necessary for a detailed assessment, but even so, a clear pattern is emerging.
The existence of the GLC and the MCCs and their large administrative structures cost money. When they go, that


money can be saved because the necessary structures already exist in the lower-tier authorities. No one disputes that. Even Coopers and Lybrand saw savings there.
One of the reasons why we see the authorities as an unnecessary tier is that several functions overlap. When the lower tier has complete responsibility, there will be scope for savings. Once again, there seems little argument about that.
The White Paper referred to the spending record of the GLC and the MCCs. In a sense, that speaks for itself. When the boroughs and the districts, which are closer to the ratepayers, take control of the services, they will be able critically to study the efficiency with which the services are delivered, and it would be extraordinary if significant savings could not be found through improving value for money.
Those districts that have begun to consider that are confident that savings will be made. Therefore, the Committee may well ask what this all adds up to in cash. As I said, it is too soon to give the information, because we do not have the definite figures. At Question Time today there was a reference to the study by Price Waterhouse of eight of the metropolitan districts which showed savings of £20 million in just three of the metropolitan county areas. That would probably mean £35 million across all six metropolitan counties. Moreover, it is clear that the numbers are, if anything, understated, because no account was taken in the Price Waterhouse study of, for instance, the sale of surplus property and overhead savings.
The Government's view is that those figures might well be doubled when the closer scrutiny of services by the lower tier is taken into account. Those figures apply to the metropolitan counties alone. They do not include the Greater London area, because we are convinced that there are savings of a similar order of magnitude in London, and studies by a number of the treasurers of London boroughs have already identified them.
All the evidence that is now beginning to become available points to overall savings of well over £100 million, and is therefore close to the estimates which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment gave at the time of the last election.

Mr. Benyon: As this is the most important aspect of the whole matter, can my right hon. Friend assure me, as someone who wishes to judge it dispassionately, that as we near Second Reading in November, we will have an unbiased report from a firm of outside accountants who will be given the full assistance to which the Secretary of State referred, and not the partial assistance that was given to Coopers and Lybrand?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said. On Second Reading I said that I would undertake to make available to the House, as fully as I can, further information on costs and savings as they become available.
My hon. Friend knows that under the Bill we are seeking powers to oblige the upper tier authorities to disclose information to the Government and to the lower-tier authorities. Part of the difficulty in making the assessments is that so far that information has largely been withheld. I understand completely, and will take the fullest account of, the need to have the best estimates that we can

obtain of the costs and savings involved in this exercise placed before the House before it considers the main principles of the abolition Bill. The more the evidence becomes available, the clearer it becomes that there are significant savings to be made. Moreover, those figures do not imply massive cuts in services, as has been so widely represented by those who challenge our case. It means that there is good news for the ratepayer, because his bills will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

Mr. Straw: It would of course mean that at least on the Secretary of State's figures 9,000 jobs would be lost in areas of high unemployment. The last occasion upon which the Secretary of State came to the House with such confidence about administrative reorganisation with which he was involved was his reorganisation of the Health Service, some two years ago, when he promised substantial savings. He will recall that an increase in National Health Service administrative staff followed that reorganisation. How can we be confident about what he says, given his record?

Mr. Jenkin: With respect, the figures were spelt out in a written answer from one of my hon. Friends in the DHSS which showed that there has been a continuous reduction in the proportion of NHS costs that go on administration. That reorganisation—[Interruption.] The numbers of doctors, nurses, ancillary workers and a whole range of other people employed in the National Health Service have risen. Of course they have gone up, but the point that was pledged was that administration as a proportion of NHS costs would reduce, and it did. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about that.
There will, of course, be some transitional costs, which will be set against the savings to which I have been referring, but they will fall mainly in the first year after abolition, and it is our view that they are unlikely to exceed the expected savings, even in that first year.
I have undertaken that we shall place more information before the House before we come to consider the main abolition Bill. I take note of the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes that that information should be backed by an independent report, but I should not like to be committed to that at this stage.
I have dealt with all the amendments that were discussed in this group of amendments, and while not in any way wishing to choke off the debate, because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, I should like to urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Boyes: We accept that in the Conservative manifesto, as in that of other parties, there was the promise of a review of local government. However, nowhere in the Conservative manifesto was there any mention of the abolition of elections. As Mr. James Naughtie of The Scotsman said on 13 April in an article about what he described as Tories of the old school:
They point out, with some force, that though the Tory Manifesto pledged to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties—a proposal which seems to be widely popular, at least outside London — there was no talk of abolishing elections.
It is about that that we are concerned and worried.
6.30 pm
I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to make a point about the Misc/95, which I understood was a Cabinet Committee representing a ministerial group, and


concerning the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. I was trying to take up the point about whether elections should be deferred or whether there should be substitution, and the differences occurring in the Cabinet at that time.
As the Secretary of State mentioned the author of the article I am now about to quote from, he must have read it, and when we were trying to raise a point of order with him he did not deny that the facts in the article were correct. I shall throw some quotations at the Secretary of State in a moment, in the hope that he will later either confirm or deny the way that he twisted and changed his attitude by the use of memos between himself, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. Perhaps he will tell us what his original position was, and why he changed it.
I do not want to go into great detail about the very important point that Conservative Members have made about the abolition of elections before Royal Assent has been given to the Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Suffice it to say that on a number of occasions the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) has brought this point graphically to our attention in his speeches, as he did on Second Reading, when he said that the Bill not only had to be passed by this House and the other place but had to receive Royal Assent before the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs could take place.
I am concerned that the abolition will take place and the people who have been elected will be substituted by non-elected people—in other words, people who have been appointed. It is not clear whether all the people who go on to the interim bodies and later on to the many quangos that will be set up will be district councillors, representing the district councils and the metropolitan areas. I hope that we shall have some clarification on that point from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Winnick: No chance.

Mr. Boyes: There is a need for an inquiry before the elections are abolished. As many hon. Members have already pointed out, there is provision in the Local Government Act for a review, which could take place without abolishing the elections. The 1972 Act said that in not less than 10 years and in no more than 15 years it would be necessary to review the position. I would have hoped that the Government would take advantage of that to review the position without trying to implement this ludicrous legislation, whereby elections are abolished and people appointed to run a local authority for a time.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend mentioned the memo that has been leaked to The Guardian, and one hopes that no one will go to prison because of it. The Secretary of State's dispute with the Prime Minister over the abolition of the elections was simply—to this extent the Secretary of State was right and had logic on his side—that he was frightened that the elections would take place in 1985 and the basic issue that would feature in such elections in the metropolitan areas and the GLC would be that of abolition. He was frightened that if those elections took place there would be a mandate from the electorate for the GLC and the MCCs to continue.

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend is correct. I can quote directly from the memo, written to the Prime Minister by the Secretary of State and sent on 20 September. It will be

better to quote the exact words, although my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has summarised them adequately. It says:
Elections to the GLC and MCCs are due in May 1985. The (Ministerial) Group are agreed that they cannot be allowed to go ahead: other objections apart, abolition would be a major issue in the elections, so that there would be a major public debate going on after the House of Commons had voted for a second reading of the abolition bill.
We want an inquiry, but the Secretary of State was worried that the elections would bring a rejection of his proposals by the people and there would have been a public debate. I believe that that is why he has never published a full analysis of all the letters of objection to these proposals that he has received. Despite his cursory answers at Question Time, I wonder when the Secretary of State will publish those letters. Perhaps he can tell us today.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not interesting that when the Secretary of State was challenged about this by my hon. Friend, all that he said was that there were different points of view? He did not refute what is contained in the leaked memo published in The Guardian, which my hon. Friend has just read out. It is clear, as he does not refute it, that the Secretary of State—if he is listening; I am not sure that he is: perhaps he is not worried—does not disagree with his earlier view that if elections were held the issue would be abolition of the metropolitan county councils, and he is still frightened that the results of any such elections would be a mandate from the electorate for those councils to continue. If the Secretary of State does not refute what is in that memo, we can only come to the obvious conclusion that the memo is accurate and genuine. I do not know whether the Secretary of State wishes to refute it.

Mr. Boyes: Mr. John Carvel, who wrote the article, is a highly respected journalist and I cannot see him quoting from a memo without some evidence for it. The last time that somebody leaked memos, that person got a gaol sentence. We are lucky that on this occasion Mr. John Carvel has been able to continue writing books and articles. We can only assume that the leaked memo is correct.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I should not wish to challenge the accuracy of Mr. Carvel's article, but what I was quoted as saying is not what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said it is. I said that the objection was that
abolition would be a major issue in the elections, so that there would be a major public debate going on after the House of Commons had voted for a second reading of the abolition bill.
What is the point of having a major debate on an issue that the House of Commons has already decided on?

Mr. Boyes: That is exactly what happened. In fact, if the Secretary of State had continued to read from the memo he would have found out that, despite what he says, it continued to set out options to be used if the elections did not take place, such as substitution. You were still thinking at that stage about the possibility of a deferral, which was your first position and which was accepted by the Prime Minister. Later, you changed the position—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Boyes: I am sorry, Mr. Dean. I should have referred to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State changed his position and eventually, according to Mr. Carvel, who had access to the memos, the Cabinet decided to take up the Secretary of State's second position.
I am merely saying that those of us who think that before these councils are abolished there should be a full inquiry into all aspects of the GLC and the metropolitan councils wonder how much prevarication there has been by other Cabinet members. I am also trying to point out—I think that I am being successful—the Secretary of State's inconsistency. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell me exactly what is happening. I can show him a further inconsistency in relation to costs.

Dr. David Clark: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me clarify the position for the Committee. Am I right in thinking that although reference was made to Mr. Carvel's article in The Guardian on 26 March, my hon. Friend has not referred just to the article but from a part of a memo addressed, so I believe, to John Bold at the Department of the Environment? I suppose that my hon. Friend's information does not depend entirely upon The Guardian article but also refers to a memo from the Prime Minister's Office.

Mr. Boyes: I said that Mr. Carvel was quite capable of writing accurately from the memo. The Times summed up the Government's attitude in a leader on 13 April. It said:
This let's-get-on-with-it approach suits the Thatcher style;
Am I allowed to say that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The leader continued:
but when addressed to elected public corporations it smacks of high-handedness and looks like ill-prepared improvisation.
That is exactly what we are getting from the Government —political vindictiveness and expediency and the need to push through the Government's policies. It looks like ill-prepared improvisation to the Opposition, too.
I cannot understand the Government's objection to an independent inquiry into the running of local authorities. If a proper inquiry had taken place I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would have accepted its findings.
Many Opposition Members opposed the abolition and had tremendous reservations about the metropolitan counties when they were set up. But none of us has ever objected to the Government or local authorities investigating. We are greatly concerned about the way in which the Government are carrying out their proposals. We think that a public inquiry, a Royal Commission, or whatever body is chosen — there are plenty of independent bodies that could look into the matter—should have considered the effectiveness of the local authorities that are currently under review. Are they efficient enough? Do they satisfy the needs of their areas? I cannot speak for the authorities under threat other than Tyne and Wear, but I know that opinion polls, including one carried out in the Prime Minister's constituency, and I presume that the Prime Minister represents a safe Conservative seat—

Mr. Winnick: It is not a very safe seat.

Mr. Boyes: Perhaps my hon. Friend is right. If the opinion polls show a majority of two to one against scrapping the elections it suggests that many people

outside the House as well as senior members of the Conservative party, with respect to the Secretary of State, speak with greater effect than those on the Government Front Bench.
The press is suggesting that whispering campaigns will be set up around some of those Conservative Back Benchers, referring to their vindictiveness. That is understandable.

Mr. Winnick: Who are the hon. Members?

Mr. Boyes: I am referring to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), among others.
If reservations were raised by just those hon. Members, I could understand the arrogance with which the Secretary of State ignores them. But independent opinion polls have been carried out in the GLC and other areas, including the Prime Minister's constituency, showing a massive majority against the Government's proposals. That suggest that many Conservative voters are very saddened by the proposals.
I do not believe that the Government's main concern is with the running of Labour-controlled authorities. They are trying to protect values that are different from mine, for example. On the other hand, all hon. Members share a common concern for attacks and threats to our democratic processes. The Secretary of State is proposing such attacks this evening.
Let us consider a remark by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup on Second Reading. He said honestly:
I believe that on this side of the House our responsibility is to look after the good name of the Tory party."—[0fficial Report, 11 April 1984; vol. 58, c. 424.]
6.45 pm
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East said that what was proposed is
not the Conservative way of doing things. If the Bill is passed, I am afraid that my opinion is that the Government and the Conservative party will rue the day.

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend repeat that?

Mr. Boyes: Yes, it was said that the Government and the Conservative party will rue the day. The right hon. Gentleman underlined that for everybody.
The right hon. Member for Amersham and Chesham—I hope that I am pronouncing it correctly—

Mr. Winnick: That is a safe seat.

Mr. Boyes: The right hon. Gentleman said:
Conservatives above all people should be chary of attacking institutions before they have found something to put in their place." — [Official Report, 11 April 1984; vol. 58, c. 424-451.]

Mr. Winnick: What about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)?

Mr. Boyes: I quoted what he said in my previous speech, so I have given the hon. Gentleman enough publicity for one day. Later on, when we are debating in the middle of the night and keeping Conservative Members up, the hon. Gentleman will get his fair share of mention.
I am also concerned about the needs of local areas. I can speak for my local authority in Tyne and Wear. It is operating in an area of high unemployment and social


deprivation. As an aside, I do not know whether the Secretary of State has been an accountant; I would need to check that.

Mr. Winnick: He has been a thief in the dark.

Mr. Boyes: I shall come to that in a moment, when I shall read some rather nasty things about the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to them.
The Secretary of State was trying to prove that if cost savings in one local authority in 10 are £x, that can be multiplied nine times. That is really like saying if, in a row of 10 houses, the person in number three is able to save £3 each week, the total savings from the row of houses is £30 a week. That is the accountancy of a lunatic asylum. We are saying that the needs of each metropolitan county council are different and that they must satisfy and respond to those needs. In Tyne and Wear, an area with very high unemployment, the council has responded in a way that might be different to that of another authority. Given the way in which the Government run their operations, it would be difficult to find a local authority that is not operating in an area of high unemployment.
I am not at all happy about the savings and the costs. The only truly independent information that we have is the Coopers and Lybrand report. The Secretary of State can talk about a four-day report that was prepared over the Easter holidays which covers only a few districts, but that does not cut much ice on the Labour Benches. We like to have solid information on which to work. That report made it clear that there will be a massive extra cost. It talks about operating costs of £11 million to £21 million a year and post-transitional costs of between £150 million and £240 million a year. Over 10 years that would total between £36 million and £62 million a year. In addition, between 1,200 and 400 extra jobs might be required. It says that there will be a considerable cost and a considerable number of extra jobs will be needed.
When the Secretary of State has time to speak at length, not just answering a little parliamentary question, he should explain in detail his argument against the Coopers and Lybrand report if he does not agree with it. I hope that a note has been made of that because I see that the Secretary of State is not listening. The Government are being brought into disrepute. Because they have a majority of about 150 they think that they can smash through any legislation that they want. That is part of their attack on the democratic process and it is the wrong way in which to operate.

Mr. Winnick: I thank my hon. Friend for kindly giving way. He has touched on an important point about the costs. Does my hon. Friend not agree that one reason — I suppose the main reason—why the Secretary of State is so angry with the advertising carried out by the GLC and the metropolitan authorities is that they are putting to the public the truth about the costs and so on? Hence the Secretary of State has let it be known to the media and the rest that he would like to consider ways and means of forbidding local authorities affected by the measure from advertising. Is not that yet another step being taken by the Government? First, they seek to abolish elections, then to abolish the authorities, and then, apparently, on top of all that, to stop the local authorities from putting their case to the public. The Secretary of State knows full well that he is not in a position to out-argue the authorities. They

are winning the argument. Instead of refuting the arguments that are being put forward, the Secretary of State wants to stop the advertising.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. The interventions of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) are becoming a series of speeches. Shall we all be allowed to make such interventions?

The Second Deputy Chairman: We are in Committee, when a little more licence is allowed.

Mr. Boyes: I am giving way, Mr. Dean, within the spirit of what you have just said. Had it been a debate, I might have taken a different attitude. I am grateful for your ruling on that point. I knew exactly what you would say because you are an honourable and honest man. [Laughter.] Does the fact that Conservative Members are laughing mean that they disagree with me? If they do, will they stand up and say so?
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North mentioned advertising. It gives me an opportunity to give a few quotations from what the Secretary of State has said about costs. The matter has been well publicised. I hope, Mr. Dean, that you will allow me to point out to the Committee exactly what was said in the advertisements in case anybody has missed them. The Secretary of State was clear and confident about the savings that would be made. He now seems to be saying that, off the top of his head, some little time ago, he decided that he would save £120 million and that he will now get little bits of evidence to prove it. Let me demonstrate through a series of quotations how unsure even the Secretary of State became over a period.
In October 1983 the Secretary of State said:
If we don't achieve substantial savings when this exercise is completed, I shall have failed.
The only trouble is that we shall not know until it is too late whether he has passed or failed the initial test. In November of the same year the Secretary of State said:
I do consider that savings of upwards of £100 million annually could be made, but that is no more than a broad estimate.
So what the Secretary of State says has begun to broaden.
Five days later the Secretary of State said:
I am beginning to recognise my wisdom in not plucking figures out of the air, because had I done so I might have underestimated the savings that could be achieved.
But we must develop that a little further because over his cup of coffee the right hon. Gentleman was becoming worried. Later that same month he said:
Savings will depend entirely on final, detailed decisions.
We are no longer being given figures. By December 1983 the Secretary of State shifted his ground completely and said:
Expenditure issues are not central to the case for abolition.
In a period of three to four months the Secretary of State had changed his attitude towards costs because he knew full well that an independent study would show the nonsense of that. Suddenly costs were thrust out of the window.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Boyes: I shall give way to the Secretary of State for a second time. However, Mr. Dean, you were in the Chair when the Secretary of State gave way to every hon. Member in the Committee except myself. He would not give way to me because he did not like the Misc/95 that I wanted to quote to him. I shall give way to any hon. Member who has an important point.

Mr. Jenkin: It is a sad day when an hon. Member has to make a speech entirely out of advertisements that have appeared in the press. The fact of the matter is that the most recent quotation that he has ascribed to me was taken out of context. When I said that expenditure was not central to the case, we did have a paragraph in the White Paper pointing out that the metropolitan county councils and GLC were among the highest overspenders. However, I was making the point there that that was not central to the case for abolition. The case for abolition is that they are an unnecessary and therefore expensive tier of government. That sentence bore no relation to costs and savings. It is an entirely separate question. Somebody has taken what I said out of context and tried to give it a meaning which it never had.

7 pm

Mr. Boyes: The Secretary of State is being a little unfair when he says that I am trying to make my speech out of advertisements. That seems to suggest that the scripts that I was reading were not his words. I do not think that in his intervention he denied that the words that I read out were in fact his own. The mere fact that his words have appeared in an advertisement does not make them different words. I want that to be clearly understood and I make that point so that it is in Hansard. I want it to be clear that I was reading out the Secretary of State's words. The Secretary of State has not denied that. Instead, he made a scurrilous attack on me for reading an advertisement script. All hon. Members must stand by their words, especially a Secretary of State whose comments are scrutinised carefully. I demonstrated conclusively how in a short time the Secretary of State changed his position. Earlier I demonstrated with leaked memos from Misc/95 how he changed his position on another matter. The Secretary of State is shifty. It may come to light when he writes his memoirs that even he shared the opinion of Opposition Members. He may admit that he secretly agreed with hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

Mr. George Park: The Secretary of State is not the only person who is shifting his position about the cost aspect being pushed out of the window. Is my hon. Friend aware that the discredited West Midlands report was repudiated by all the district councils except Solihull?

Mr. Boyes: That is a powerful point and adds substantially to my argument.
The Secretary of State did not answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in detail. He suggested—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong — that if people objected to the Government's proposals they were politically motivated and had been encouraged to write by political bodies. On the other hand, if a person supported the Government's proposals, he was honest, true and principled. If the Secretary of State believes that, he is using the same language as that of a totalitarian regime. If there is opinion against such a Government, they believe it comes from politically motivated people, who must therefore be suppressed. The Secretary of State is not listening, demonstrating the arrogance of the Government. However, I hope that he will give the Conunittee an exact breakdown of the figure to show how many people objected and how many supported the proposals.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because that is the only way for hon. Members to speak in this debate. When hon. Members asked for an analytical breakdown of the submissions received, the Secretary of State said that that was impossible because his Department could not tell which submissions were received after certain dates as incoming letters were not registered. Will my hon. Friend comment on that? Will he also comment on the well-known fact that the Conservative Central Office and the Department of the Environment team actively whipped up Conservative associations to make submissions in favour of the Government's proposals? Who is talking about politically biased reporting now?

Mr. Boyes: The Secretary of State said that his Department received 91 submissions regarding the metropolitan counties and 91 for the GLC. He was not successful in whipping up support if, after political pressure was applied, the number of letters in favour of the proposals was only 180. To use the logic of the Secretary of State, of the 650 constituencies, nearly 500 are in total disagreement. Apart from a few Conservative Members, the Secretary of State has not even the support of the Conservative party.
Three organisations have just attracted Nissan to Tyne and Wear, an area of high unemployment. They were the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council, the Sunderland borough council and the Washington development corporation. It has been recognised, especially by those three negotiating bodies, that to attract that top multinational company—the Secretary of State will undoubtedly have met Nissan representatives frequently—to provide jobs in our area was important and required substantial goodwill. Yet the Government propose to abolish Tyne and Wear metropolitan council, and yesterday the Department of the Environment issued a document saying that it intended to abolish the Washington development corporation. The Government propose to abolish two of the three bodies that successfully brought jobs to the north-east. There is something peculiar about such a policy.

Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friend referred to the favourable and unfavourable responses to the Government's proposals to abolish the metropolitan councils and the GLC. He may have overlooked the fact that yesterday I received a written reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. I asked how many responses the Government had received on the Bill. The answer was 80. I asked how many were favourable, and he replied that most of them were unfavourable. The election results in the metropolitan areas—the best poll of all—are highly significant, and show the electorate's feelings about the Government's policies, not least about this Bill.

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend's point adds to my argument. It shows that the Government are politically vindictive in abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan councils. The Government are making a direct attack on our democratic processes by stopping those elections. Any example that underlines that is welcome.
George Tremlett has written at great length in the newspapers about his campaign to defend local authorities. He said:
My personal reaction at this time is one of great sadness. I feel we are witnessing a deeply human tragedy.


To give some heart to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, he said:
Can you imagine a Government led by Mr. Heath
doing such a thing? I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman might have abolished Tyne and Wear county council, but I am sure that he would not tell the people of my area, "You cannot have a vote," nor can I envisage memos going round saying, "We cannot allow elections to take place because they would be a comment on our proposals."
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned local elections. I also raised the matter at Question Time, and I shall underline it now. The people of Tyne and Wear have spoken in the best possible way—through the ballot box—about the Government's proposals, and 87 out of the 113 people returned last Thursday were against the Government's proposals. My constituency is one of three in the borough of Sunderland, and it is interesting to note that the leader of the Conservative party in the borough council lost her seat. There can be nothing more symbolic than that. I hope that the message is getting through. My colleagues from the north-east will know exactly where the Sunderland Echo stands in the political spectrum. It has never denied that it supports the Conservative party at election time, but its headline last week was:
Thatcher's fifth year celebrations soured.
The article stated:
As she notched up her fifth year in power, the electorate turned both nationally and locally to her political opponents.
The people of Tyne and Wear do not want their council to be abolished. They certainly do not want elections to the councils in 1985 to be abolished, and they have spoken in the strongest possible way through the ballot box. I ask the Government to reconsider their proposals.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I do not wish to anticipate events, but in comparison with the marathon that we have just witnessed it is likely that my speech will seem like a brief sprint.
I shall say nothing about elections or their abolition since that matter will be discussed under clause 2, but I was somewhat bemused by the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State towards the provisions in the White Paper that will be included in legislation next Session. His attitude, especially to the cost of those provisions, was that any contention that he might make about cost should be treated as fact whereas any careful analysis that has been made, such as that by Coopers and Lybrand, should be treated as nonsense. It is not good enough for my right hon Friend to treat that firm's careful analysis in such a light-hearted way.
To take up the point made at the beginning of the debate by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans), at the risk of being abolished, I wish to open my mouth and say what I believe, not for the first time, in relation to local government legislation. I did so during our debates on the Local Government Act 1972, when I did not entirely agree with what was proposed, since originally I was a supporter of the ideas produced by the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, which recommended that local government should be based on unitary authorities. Local government is in difficulty nowadays not least because the proposals of that commission were not accepted, although I appreciate that at the time it was politically almost impossible to do so.
7.15 pm
The Government are in some difficulty with the Bill. They may not have realised it yet, but they will by the end of the Committee stage. Of course they will win the votes, but I wonder whether they will win the arguments. 'They are unlikely to carry the public with them. It is important that those of us who voted against the principle of the Bill should now do our best to improve it to get the Government out of the hole of their own making.
I share the worry of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) about the speed with which the legislation is being introduced. It would be far better to adopt a measured approach to a major reform of local government, such as the one that we shall have to consider next year. Why should we not use, as amendment No. 3 suggests, the legislation passed by the Conservative Government in 1972 which would enable this Government properly to take account of the position? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that a formal inquiry, such as is provided for in sections 47, 48 and 49 of the 1972 Act, would be bound to take a long time and that nothing would be achieved by such an inquiry. That is not good enough. As has been said several times, the commitment to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties was in the manifesto for last summer's election. It would have been perfectly possible to initiate an inquiry under the provisions of the Act immediately following the general election. Even now it is not too late. If such an inquiry were initiated we might get a much better system than that foreseen in the White Paper. We might even be able to assist the ratepayers, which at present seems to be highly doubtful.
I am convinced that, unless such a major reform is preceded by detailed analysis and consideration, mistakes will be made and we shall be impaled on hooks of our own making. My attitude to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties is that they should be abolished as long as we are convinced that the alternatives will be better. The evidence on that score is thin. We cannot yet accept the Government's view that what is proposed will be better than what we have, whatever are the failings of what we have. As has been pointed out several times in the debate, Coopers and Lybrand is a respectable firm, and is often used by the Government. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred to some of Coopers and Lybrand's figures, which I shall not repeat. Coopers and Lybrand said:
Our overall conclusion is that the Government's claims for substantial savings are not supported by our analysis; indeed, we conclude that there are unlikely to be any net savings as a result of the structural changes proposed by the Government, and that there could be significant extra costs.
From that one might conclude that at best the saving would be minimal, and at worst there could be a considerable increase in cost to be borne by the ratepayer.
It is all the more important, therefore, that the Government should obtain an independent view of the realities of the extent of the waste that now occurs and of what might be done about it. The Government should perhaps recall that allegedly Henry II said:
Who will free me from this turbulent priest?
Very soon afterwards, Sir Thomas a'Becket became a martyr and a saint. Somebody, I know not who, has said, "Who will free us from these turbulent metropolitan counties and the GLC?" Already Ken Livingstone is seen as a martyr, although I doubt whether he will ever be a


saint. There may be other martyrs before long unless the problems of London and of the metropolitan counties are approached sensibly and logically.
Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides the opportunity to do that. It provides:
The Secretary of State may direct the English Cornmission to conduct a review of the principal areas in England as a whole, or of any one or more local government areas or parts of such areas in England, for the purpose of considering whether or not to make such proposals in relation to the area reviewed as are authorised by section 47 above and what proposals if any to make and the Commission shall, if they think fit, formulate such proposals accordingly.
Section 47 is helpful to the Government, because it says:
Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, the English Commission may in consequence of a review conducted by them … make proposals to the Secretary of State for effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government by any of the following means or any combination of those means.
The following means and the combination of those means include
the constitution of a new local government area of any description outside Greater London … the abolition of a principal area of any description outside Greater London and the distribution among other areas of the like description … the conversion of a metropolitan into a non-metropolitan county or of a non-metropolitan into a metropolitan county … the constitution of a new London borough by the amalgamation of two or more London boroughs
and so forth. Thus it is a comprehensive section. There is no reason why the Government should not make use of that provision now and initiate an inquiry. No doubt the Government could give the Local Government Boundary Commission a time limit by which it will have to draw its conclusions.
I have no doubt that, if this happens, the Government could be saved from making some fearful mistakes. Without such an inquiry, I do not think that anyone will have much faith that the Government have achieved the right answer in their determination to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
I hope that my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend in responding to this series of amendments will give a much more comprehensive reply to why the Government cannot initiate an inquiry forthwith than we have been given so far by the Secretary of State.

Mr. O'Brien: I support the amendments.
The Secretary of State said that he wished to clear up some misunderstandings. His comments, and what he termed his explanations to the Committee, created, rather than cleared up, misunderstandings. He referred to the White Paper entitled "Streamlining the Cities", and he commented upon the responses to the White Paper. I have been doing some research on the matter. I am advised that the Government received in total approximately 5,000 responses to the White Paper, but they were reticent about making copies of this information available to the House.
Hon. Members will recall that on 9 April the Secretary of State placed in the Library of the House a brief summary of the analysis of the report, and of the responses made to the Department of the Environment. On the basis of the Government's categorisation of responses, the summary identifies an overwhelming rejection of the White Paper proposals. The information given was that the responses to the Department of the Environment-.were 2,300, but only 227 of the responses were published on the list. In

respect of the arts, 600 responses were received, but only 304 were published on the list. In respect of transport, 327 responses were received, but only 96 were published. That leaves a great deal of doubt and misunderstanding as to the real responses to the White Paper.
This is all the more reason why support should be given to the group of amendments which seek that inquiries be made, and that reports be produced to explain the views and feelings of the general public, the 13 million electorate who will lose the opportunity to elect direct representatives to the counties and to the Greater London council. If support were given to the amendments, and if an inquiry were held, it would at least remove the doubt felt about the responses that we know were made to the White Paper, but that have not yet been made available to the House. The figures provided in the Department's summary show that, overall, only 8·5 per cent. of the 1,200-odd responses received supported the White Paper's proposals to abolish the metropolitan county councils and that only 6 per cent. of the 1,500-odd replies supported the proposal to abolish the GLC.
7.30 pm
I support the amendments, because I served actively in local government for more than 30 years and consider that the Bill's proposals are alien to local government and do not in any way help or encourage it. Much has been said today about the reorganisation that took place. The Secretary of State referred to the 1972 Bill and to the reorganisation that followed it. But it must be admitted that there was a great deal of dialogue and consultation before any action was taken. Thus, we appeal to hon. Members to support the amendments, because there should be further inquiries and more consultation as to the needs of local government and its future.
Many people fear for other areas of local government, including the district and shire councils. They have not been included in this round, but if the Government are allowed to continue along the same lines, no area of local government will be safe or sacrosanct. I hope that those Conservative Members who are involved or interested in local government will take note of the situation facing the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, as there could be repercussions for local authorities in their constituencies. Indeed, I hope that they will give careful consideration to our appeal for their support for the amendments.
We do not misunderstand, and nor do most people, the Government's policy in abolishing the elections that are due to be held next year. They wish to deny those who were elected to serve in the metropolitan counties and in the GLC the right to stand for re-election. To take away the functions of elected representatives and to say that the Government will add them to the responsibilities and duties of district councillors, means that the Government are not helping local government.
From 1974 until I came to the House, I served as a metropolitan district councillor. With my hand on my heart, I can say that there is sufficient work within the metropolitan districts to keep those who are elected fully involved in providing services, and so on. To give them, in addition, the further services that the county councils are responsible for is not in the best interests of those authorities, or of those who serve on them. I say that because of the difference in the functions. If we are to be honest with those who rely on local government for their


services, it is unfair to place the functions of county councils on top of those already given to the district councils. To impose such services on the district councils is not in the best interests of those who rely on those services for their livelihoods or who seek to enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
The Bill requires us to give the Secretary of State the power to decide when the major part of the Bill is to be enacted. To do that without some inquiry means that we are giving the Secretary of State tremendous power. Despite what he says, he is seeking to give himself powers in advance of the main body of legislation. To request such powers without first giving the House information and answers to questions that have been put on more than one occasion is to fail to treat the House with the customary respect. It is important to ensure that we consider what could face local government, if not all the information is made available in the first place. An inquiry would help to lessen the fear and reduce the misunderstanding that could result from the Bill, as presented.
Big conurbations need single public authorities to coordinate strategic functions. For example, in west Yorkshire, we have an example of how a single authority has co-ordinated public transport throughout five metropolitan district areas. From the starving child of the county when the Conservatives were in office, the service has, in the past four years, become viable, well organised and well run. Public transport in west Yorkshire is now welcomed and well received by all the ratepayers in the area. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members and for a substantial number of ratepayers when I say that there should be single public authorities to co-ordinate the police, the fire service and those responsible for the highways. The abolition of the metropolitan authorities will lead to an inefficient hotchpotch of quangos, joint boards and voluntary joint committees.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend remember that 45 minutes ago the Secretary of State conceded that cost-saving no longer motivated the Government in the abolition of the authorities? Bearing in mind that the Government have not announced that they intend to abolish the shire counties, does my hon. Friend agree that the real motivation must be party political? Does he agree that the Government are annoyed that the GLC and the metropolitan authorities are Labour-controlled and that all the evidence is that our party would win if elections were held? The Government are indulging in political spite. They do not like Mr. Livingstone and they do not like Labour majorities in west Yorkshire or in the west Midlands. They are abolishing the councils for party political reasons and out of spite. Does that not demonstrate that Conservative Members who, honourably, are opposing the measure understand what is involved and recognise that if their party follows this line they will be discredited?

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Bill is politically motivated. That is accepted by the majority in the House and outside. Everyone knows that the Bill is more political than cost-saving.
In May 1983, we were told that a saving of £100 million and 9,000 jobs would result from the measure. That was immediately before the general election. After the general election the Government said that perhaps that was wrong

and that there had been a misunderstanding. There has been a gradual shift from the belief that savings will result from the exercise.
The Bill is politically motivated. The Government say that if they cannot beat the Labour party at the ballot box they will do so by legislation. When we occupy the Government Benches we shall ensure that politically motivated policies are reversed and that proposals are made to return electors' rights to the metropolitan areas.
The fragmentation and duplication that will result from the measure have led many people to believe that the Government's proposals are based, not on making local government more efficient, but on removing democratically elected councils, to whose policies the Government are hostile. That is the bedrock of the Bill.
The main abolition Bill to be introduced later will give Parliament the opportunity to debate whether to support the removal of the authorities, the fragmentation of services and the loss of over 9,000 jobs. In areas such as west Yorkshire the further job losses will create extra difficulties for families, and will bring greater hardship to an area already suffering from heavy unemployment.
We hope that by the time the Government introduce the main Bill they will have evidence to show that their policies are based on something more than political expediency.

Mr. John Maples: The hon. Member said that the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC would lead to substantial redundancies. If that is correct, that must inevitably lead to substantial savings.

Mr. O'Brien: That is not necessarily so, because if duplication occurs, extra costs will be involved. Other local authority workers will have extra work and overtime payments will have to be made.

Mr. Maples: indicated dissent.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) shakes his head, but he should read the reports.

Mr. Richard Holt: What about what happened in 1963–64 when the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was a member of a local authority?

Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will comment on that. The argument is that 9,000 redundancies will result in a saving. Hon. Members who think that are obviously blinkered. Further supplementary benefits will have to be paid from the national purse and redundancy payments will have to be found.

Mr. Terry Lewis: I recall vividly that in 1972–73 the late Sir Graham Page stomped the country telling the people in local government that there would be massive savings in jobs. I call the loss of jobs lost jobs, not a saving. Neither the Minister nor his deputies has examined how many jobs will be lost or how much will be saved. I suspect that we shall be in exactly the same position that we were in 10 years ago, when howls of anguish came from the Tory Benches, when it was claimed that people were on the gravy train and taking millions of pounds out of local government. A discussion of those


matters would be useful tonight. I suspect that Tory Members are nervous about how much money will be spent on seeing people out of local government.

Mr. O'Brien: The remarks of my hon. Friend bring to mind the exercise undertaken by the late Sir Graham Page. I remember attending a meeting in Leeds which he addressed. He said that savings would be made and that arrangements would be better because of reorganisation. A decade later, the Government are introducing rate capping and other controls, because that reorganisation did not work.
We have been told by the Secretary of State and Government supporters that reorganisation failed and that this is the result of that failure. We say that, before going from one failure to another, an inquiry should be held into what will happen, so that we shall not have to come here again in a few years' time with another reorganisation because this proposal also has failed.
The Government are expecting Parliament to approve major constitutional changes. They expect us to make changes to the constitution of local government in advance of a debate on the main Bill. If the Bill is passed, local elections which are due next year will be scrapped, even though the local authorities will still be in existence. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in his opening remarks on the amendments. The Secretary of State reiterated that interim boards not directly elected by local communities will take over. We have been told that in some cases political control of councils will change without the electorate having the democratic right to exercise their choice through the ballot box. If that is not gerrymandering the political scene, I do not know what is. The Government are setting in motion a procedure that will change the political control of local authorities without elections.
Grave precedents are being set. The Government are not only jeopardising jobs but eroding and endangering the very fabric of democracy. The amendments have been proposed in an effort to restrain the Secretary of State from making an order to cancel the 1985 elections until the main legislation has completed its parliamentary course, until there has been an investigation of the structure of metropolitan local government and until the Audit Commission has produced a financial study.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other local authority organisations have argued constantly that this Bill should not have been brought before Parliament until the substantive proposals for reorganisation were approved. My right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, Conservative Members have argued that point both on Second Reading and today. Comment has been made that it was wholly inappropriate for changes to be initiated without further consideration of the cost and the likely benefits of yet another reorganisation of local government.
The Secretary of State referred to value for money. If we are sincere about getting value for money, there should have been an investigation into costs before the legislation was introduced. The amendments seek to institute such a consideration and to provide a more ordered sequence of legislation. It is against that background that the amendments have been put forward. We object to the uncertainty of the Government's plan and to the speed with

which the Government are seeking to cancel elections and introduce temporary arrangements within the affected councils.
I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in appealing to Conservative Members to support the amendments, because they are in the interests of local government. If the amendments are not accepted, we are cutting away the very fabric of local government. That is why I have spoken in favour of the amendments and ask other hon. Members to support them.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I hope to detain the Committee for only a few minutes, but as I voted against the Second Reading of this Bill I want to make my position clear. I am not opposed to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. If I had been, I would have made that clear during the election campaign when the matter was under discussion. If one of my opponents had alleged during that campaign that it was part of our policy in carrying through proposals for the abolition of the metropolitan counties to abolish elected representatives and replace them by nominees of a different political complexion I would in all honesty, and believing myself to be expressing the facts, have most indignantly denied such a charge.
It came as a great surprise and shock to me when I heard that these were indeed the methods to be used. I must say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that I regard these proposals as a profoundly un-Tory measure. It may be a platitude that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance but platitudes have a way of expressing profound truths or they would not have become platitudes.
To put the situation in a local context, in my county of Lincolnshire I can imagine the horror of the Tories and the elected Conservative majority on the Lincolnshire county council if a future Labour Government decided to use its majority in the House of Commons to remove the democratically elected Lincolnshire county councillors and replace them by nominated Left-wingers to run the county, if only for 11 months. I would be outraged by such a proposal and my supporters in the constituency and throughout the county would expect me to oppose it with the utmost vehemence.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We must be extremely careful not to break the rules of political fair play by which we normally conduct our affairs in this country. Precisely because we have unitary Government and no Bill of Rights or supreme court to which appeals can be made, a Government with an unusually large parliamentary majority should be very careful to treat their political opponents with respect and with the greatest possible attention to the maintenance of proper constitutional procedures at all times. Although I am not a constitutional lawyer I have read a good deal of constitutional history. If such a measure as this was brought forward in the United States or Australia my belief is that there would be an appeal to the supreme court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and that the supreme court in both those countries would probably uphold such an appeal.
None of this is necessary. It is possible for the Government, a little later tonight, when one of my right hon. or hon. Friends moves the amendment proposing that the existing elected councillors remain in office until 1 April 1986, to announce that they accept that amendment, in which case the main constitutional objection to the Bill


falls by the wayside. I cannot understand why, even at this late hour, my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Cabinet as a whole are prepared to waste an enormous amount of the time of the House of Commons—when there is so much other more important business that we should be discussing — in spending days and days and days discussing these very dubious constitutional proposals when the whole essence of the controversy, certainly for my right hon. and hon. Friends, could be removed at once by the acceptance of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym).
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State these thoughts, which are not confined to me alone, or even to the 19 Conservative Members who voted against Second Reading. I believe that this view is widely held throughout the Conservative parliamentary party in both Houses of Parliament and that it is shared by many Conservative councillors and by Tories wherever one goes throughout the country.

8 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall try to restrict my remarks to amendments Nos. 2 and 4, rather than attempting to start a Second Reading debate.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) and applaud his sentiments. I only wish that I could be optimistic enough to believe that his remarks will receive a sympathetic hearing from the Government. He must realise that he is within a party where people like him are in a dwindling minority. He has only to look around him to note the number of people who are not on his side this evening. When the voting fodder comes through the doors, his words will have been for naught.
I do not wish to detain the Committee, but during my researches I discovered a small document that I want to quote. It is not as exciting as Misc/95, but it is apposite. It is called "The Doom of the County Council of London", and states:
If any critic should be disposed to say of the following sketch that it is too highly-coloured and overdrawn, let him reflect for a moment on the work of the County Council during the brief period of its existence; on what it has attempted and declared its wish to accomplish … It was Thursday, the fourteenth of June, 1911 — a day long to be remembered in the history of the Metropolis, and indeed of England. For a climax had been reached, and the hour had come in which the fate of either the Imperial Parliament or the London County Council had to be decided … From the moment that the Council obtained control over the Metropolitan Police, it snapped its fingers at both the House of Commons and the Government. Remonstrance on their part was out of the question. They had to approach the Council in the language of entreaty, and by-and-by their sole duty in connection with it was to register its decrees, and obey its behests … Now, however, the pretensions of the County Council had reached a height at which it was no longer possible to tolerate them. Claims were advanced which could be compared only to those preferred to King Charles the First by the Long Parliament …
The story is long, but it ends:
the Conservatives took office and secured a triumphant victory at the General Election which immediately followed. Parliament was summoned to meet forthwith, and the very first measure laid upon the Table of the House of Commons was a Bill abolishing the County Council of London. The gas, electric lighting, and water supplies were handed over to the City Corporation, which was confirmed in all its ancient rights and privileges; the tramways and omnibuses, and the docks were sold to private companies, and the proceeds applied to the reduction of the

Municipal debt; the care of the parks, and above all, the control of the Police, were once more vested in the Executive; the Hotel"—
now county hall—
became the property of a Limited Liability Company, and was transformed into an hotel proper, which was largely patronised by wealthy American visitors. London awoke again to life, with a delightful sense of freedom, as though it had escaped the hideous horrors of a prolonged nightmare!
It could almost be the document upon which the Prime Minister based her manifesto pledge. Instead, it is a document which was published in 1892. The constant friction between the county council of London, now the GLC, and central Government has always existed.
There has been a recognised London metropolitan area since 1855. A series of Royal Commissions brought us to our present position. The GLC is not a new creation in the sense that it has no antecedents; it can trace its history back to the directly elected London county council. It should not be disposed of in the way that the Government propose—without any inquiry or any examination of the needs of London or the requirements of running a city of such size and significance.
The first Royal Commission was on municipal corporations, and it published a report in 1837. It called for one authority for the whole of the uninterrupted town. That statement is made continually throughout the various inquiries since then. In 1855 the Board of Works was set up. It was an indirectly elected body which did a great deal of good for London in its time, but its indriectly elected nature attracted a great deal of criticism. People in London did not feel that they had the control over the body that they wanted. That is the great problem of indirectly elected bodies. When the Board of Works came to an end, it had added to its functions the fire service and housing. The Local Government Act 1899 set up the LCC. Therefore, we can see 85 uninterrupted years of direct elections for a London-wide body.
A further Royal Commission was set up in 1919 under Viscount Ullswater, and the GLC was set up following the Royal Commission under Edwin Herbert, which reported in 1960, resulting in the Local Government Act 1963.
I commend hon. Members to re-read the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission. That evidence is much more freely available than the evidence received by the Secretary of State with regard to "Streamlining the Cities". We are left with the rather nasty thought that the only reason that the Secretary of State refused to let hon. Members see the evidence had nothing to do with precedent or normal courtesy, but everything to do with the fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence was damning to the Government's case. I shall withdraw that remark whenever the Secretary of State deigns to allow Back Benchers to see the evidence by lodging it in the Library.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What is the GLC's interpretation of the number of people who have written to it either in favour of or against the legislation? Does my hon. Friend think that now would be an appropriate opportunity for the Minister to say exactly how many people wrote to his Department both for and against the legislation, and when that evidence will see the light of day?

Mr. Banks: Perhaps my hon. Friend should direct that question to the Secretary of State. He should intervene in his speech, not mine. However, I should very much like


that evidence to be put in the Library so that all right hon. and hon. Members can read it for themselves. Information is supposed to be the language of democracy. I know that democracy is not an especially favoured topic on the Conservative Benches, but all hon. Members should be entitled to see the information. Why is the Secretary of State scared of that? I suppose that that is a rhetorical question: we all know the answer. He has a lousy job to do. I do not know whether he is doing it with or without enthusiasm; that is difficult to detect. He has a lousy job to do and an even worse case to put forward. He wants to keep the information that disproves his case—in fact smashes it into the ground—as secret and as hidden away as possible.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that as there is no real case for the Bill—if there was, the Secretary of State would be the first to the Dispatch Box to argue it—the real reason for abolition is the Prime Minister's spite against the GLC and the metropolitan authorities? If there was the slightest possibility that those bodies would change politically through an election, they would not be abolished. It is purely party political spite. The shire counties are not being touched for the obvious reason that they have an almost in-built Tory majority. Does my hon. Friend agree that that fact should be published and emphasised as the only reason for the abolition proposals?

Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, there is something unreal about this whole discussion. It is rather like Hamlet without the prince or Snow White without the witch. After all, we know where this proposal originated, and all the flannel from the Government Front Bench cannot hide the facts. It arises out of party political spite and the vindictiveness of one person. I do not deny that the Prime Minister is clever. But she is unimaginative, and it must be awful for the leader of a nation to be accused of lacking in imagination. I consider her to be nothing more than an unimaginative lower middle class Tory bigot; but perhaps my prejudices—we all have them—are now coming to the fore.
To base the restructuring of local government on the personal animosity of one individual for another—the relationship that seems to exist between the Prime Minister and the leader of the GLC—is hardly an appropriate way for Parliament to take a major decision of this kind. But the right hon. Lady, with her vast majority, has the ability to get Conservative Members to vote in the Lobby for whatever she wants. With her great power of patronage, she has instilled fear into the miserable Front Bench representatives of the Department of the Environment, who dance to whatever tune she calls. That is a most undemocratic tune, which is not being whistled by many people outside the House, certainly not in London.
There has never been such a change in local government in London without a Royal Commission or an inquiry of some sort. That is why the amendment urges the Government to conduct an inquiry. If the Secretary of State feels that nothing would be gained by such an exercise, may I ask him whether he has read the evidence of the Herbert commission?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: indicated assent.

Mr. Banks: I am glad to know that. In that case, he must be aware that all the proposals that will come before the House for the abolition of the GLC were rejected in 1957 by the Herbert commission. It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman now to say that the Government are simply restoring to the boroughs the powers that they had. The Herbert commission devolved all the powers that could possibly be devolved to the boroughs. In other words, the Government are not proposing to give back to the boroughs that which they previously had. They are giving to them that which they never had before.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I served on the Standing Committee on the Bill which was discussed when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made a mess of reorganisation and various other things. Does my hon. Friend recall that it was not just a question of the local boroughs but also the responsibilities of the Greater London council, Middlesex county council, Essex county council and Kent county council? Those responsibilities were taken away at that time. Nowhere is there any question of the democratic rights that belong to the people of what were previously those counties being returned to them. In other words, this is riding roughshod over not only the Herbert commission but every other proposition that was put forward at that time.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. All the evidence in London—I am confining myself to the capital—argues against what the Government are proposing. Indeed, it is intellectually insulting to Parliament for proposals such as this to be introduced, proposals which spit in the face of the Herbert commission and which reject all considered judgments arrived at over the years by people in central and local government in London. To have such changes placed before Parliament based on the Prime Minister's peculiar obsession with Mr. Livingstone — her belief that somehow he represents the end of civilisation — is abhorrent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): Leaving aside the hon. Gentleman's remarks about what we propose being intellectually insulting and the rest of that claptrap, may I ask him why he thinks the present leader of the GLC was in favour of doing what we are doing until he became the leader of the GLC?

Mr. Banks: That was hardly worth the Minister getting to his feet. If hon. Members wish, I will cite the evidence that the Secretary of State gave to the inquiry set up by Sir Horace Cutler.
I said at the time that Mr. Livingstone was wrong in 1979 and that the Secretary of State was right in 1979. Mr. Livingstone is now correct and the Secretary of State is wrong.

Mr. Waldegrave: rose—

Mr. Banks: The Minister has many more opportunities than I have to speak.
While we are clearing up such matters, let me put another one to rest. The Secretary of State referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) as having said during the election that the Labour party, if elected, would make changes without having a proper inquiry. Were my right hon. Friend now


the Secretary of State, he would run into the same trouble from his Back Benchers as the right hon. Gentleman is running into from the supporters behind him. One cannot water down democracy and say, "We shall ignore all the evidence and ride roughshod over Parliament and local government." If my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton proposed what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing, he would have the same degree of opposition as the right hon Gentleman is receiving from both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Tracey: Did the hon. Gentleman agree with his party's policy of abolishing the shire counties, had Labour been returned to power? The country would like to know the answer to that.

Mr. Banks: I cannot believe that the nation is waiting to learn what I believe, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman. I accept that no pattern of local government should remain unaltered, because there is nothing that cannot be improved. The amendment is concerned to ensure that we have a proper inquiry so that the evidence can be examined and thoughtful views advanced. We may, when in office, wish to abolish the shire counties. I only hope that we will not try to do it in the messy way in which the Government are trying to take this step. I hope that we shall approach the problem with consideration for the needs of local government.

Mr. Corbyn: Has there ever been an occasion when the present leader of the GLC has called for the abolition of elections and the continuation in office of an authority? The comments of the Under-Secretary on that point were, I thought, disgraceful and inaccurate and showed his lack of understanding of the whole issue of democracy in local government.

Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is distressing for me, having been in local government as an elected member for 14 years, to witness the way in which the whole idea of local authority service and structure is being pushed aside as though such matters were unimportant. When I consider what Ken Livingstone has said and what the present Prime Minister has said, I know who is the true democrat. Mr. Livingstone has said on a number of occasions that he would rather see the GLC run by the Conservative party, if elected through the ballot box, than see it abolished. I cannot believe that such sentiments pass through the mind of the Prime Minister. Her reaction to opposition is to exterminate it. She exterminates opposition within her own party as rapidly as she seeks to exterminate it from the Labour party. We are dealing with an incipient Fascist who cannot tolerate opposition in any circumstances.
The evidence shows that the Government's proposals run against the conclusions of Royal Commissions. It must be stressed that changes in London's government have always been preceded by Royal Commissions and inquiries. If the Secretary of State is so enamoured of precedent, that is one that he should follow. He should give us a Royal Commission or inquiry.
Amendment No. 4 is directed to savings. I find it difficult to understand how the Government can expect the Committee and the House of Commons to have any confidence in statements that are made about savings that might flow from the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. A number of papers have been

submitted to us by accountants and borough treasurers and they conflict one with another. They certainly conflict with much of the evidence that the Secretary of State has been able to muster. The right hon. Gentleman changes his tune to suit the circumstances that might prevail.
We have heard a great deal about the manpower savings that might be achieved if the GLC were abolished. The GLC's expenditure on personnel amounts to only 16 per cent. of its total expenditure. In local government generally, expenditure on personnel is about 60 per cent. I cannot envisage any great savings coming from staff cuts. The GLC's expenditure on administrative services and managers is 1·2 per cent. of its total spending and that is accompanied by spending of 2·1 per cent. on clerical staff, 3·2 per cent. on building trade workers, engineering staff and park-keepers, for example, and 5·2 per cent. on fire fighting. Where are all the savings to come from if the GLC is abolished? Most of its personnel will still be required. The only staff who might go are senior managers and administrators, and they represent only 1·2 per cent. of the GLC's spending on personnel. The Committee must remember that the Bill will abolish GLC elections that presently decide who shall run the services that are provided by the GLC and that it will not abolish GLC services. No services currently provided by the GLC will disappear, but they will become more costly to provide.
I ask the Secretary of State to remember what happened when the ambulance service was taken from the GLC. Were costs saved when that happened? What happened when sewerage and waste disposal services were transferred from the GLC to the Thames water authority? Were there any savings? The answer is that there were not. Those services have become far more expensive to provide because a greater number of staff are involved, and at the same time there is no democratic accountability to Londoners. I anticipate that I shall be a member of this place for some years to come and I shall make the right hon. Gentleman eat the words that he has uttered on this occasion in whatever capacity he happens to be at the time. I hope that he will be sitting on the Opposition Benches in some relatively humble and junior job. He may be devilling for the fall of the Prime Minister. I shall ensure that he remembers what he has said this evening.
The GLC is financially well managed. Maurice Stonefrost, who is now its comptroller of financial services, has one of the finest financial brains in B rita in. If the GLC were abolished, the Secretary of State could do himself a few favours by getting Maurice to work for him. If he were working for him now, he would be able to point to the fundamental financial errors that the Government are prepared to make. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, the Bill has nothing to do with money. It had something to do with it at one stage, but it is now about duplication. I have already shown that there is no duplication in London. The London boroughs are having new services given to them and new responsibilities but no services are being restored to them.
The Secretary of State places great store on borough treasurers, and he has referred to the report which has been prepared by the Tory treasurers. The report was produced by the treasurers of Westminster, Wandsworth, Bromley and Kensington, four solid, true-blue Tory boroughs. Would the treasurer of Westminster, for example, have been prepared to submit evidence to the doughty Lady Porter that disproved her case? If he had done so, I suspect that he would now be looking for a new job.
Has the Secretary of State read the report of the four Tory borough treasurers? It appears that he has not. That being so, I shall furnish him with a copy. Of the £370 million-worth of savings that are identified in the report, only £35 million-worth arise from management rationalisation and the elimination of duplication. The borough treasurers presume that if GLC expenditure were reduced to £216 million they would attract block grant of £154 million, which would produce a total saving of £370 million.
I have news for these four frightened Tory borough treasurers. They will have to add another £130 million to the savings that they have in mind before they receive any block grant from the Government. Their report is a party political job and not a financial document. It presumes that the new authorities that inherit the GLC's responsibilities will make major policy changes. It presumes also that the Secretary of State will suddenly have a new heart when it comes to considering local authority finance and will be prepared to be more generous in the allocation of block grant. We all know that that is not the way in which local authority finance is being controlled.
The report from the borough treasurers of Westminster, Wandsworth, Bromley and Kensington is not worth the paper on which it is written and it is nothing more than a party political job. It was probably inspired by the Tory leaders of the four boroughs to throw the Secretary of State a lifeline, and the poor devil needs one. He does not have an argument on which he can rely and he does not have many friends sitting behind him in the Chamber. However, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said, the elective dictatorship will ensure that all Members' rooms in this place are emptied at about 10 o'clock and that all the lobby fodder troops through the Government Lobby to support them in the Division.
I find it insulting that 85 continuous years of local elections in London are coming to an end under the hand of this shambles of a Government Front Bench whose occupants appear to know nothing about local government in London and who seem to care nothing for their own personal honour.

Mr. Tracey: I intervene in the debate as a relative newcomer to this place, but someone who is no newer than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I do not think that I am being naive in saying that the amendments are devices for playing for time. The game is well over for the GLC and the metropolitan authorities, but we are witnessing an attempt to kick on into injury time and to kick the ball into touch. Despite the great importance that Labour Members have decided suddenly to place on opinion polls—they probably do not attach the same importance to the polls on their leader's popularity throughout the nation or the position of their party—I suspect that the polls do not reflect the true view of the silent majority.
I represent a Greater London constituency and I shall not try to make statements about other parts of the country, although various Labour Members are prepared to claim that they know a great deal about Greater London, notwithstanding that they merely come and go within the area.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Tracey: I shall not give way. I shall finish my speech. The hon. Gentleman can then address the Committee in the same vein as his shirt tells us—"GLC Working for London". He will be working for the GLC and reading out its brief, as Opposition Members seem to do.
During the election campaign, the electorate told me that they believed that the abolition of the GLC was long overdue. Many studies have been conducted over the years. We have heard a great deal about the Herbert commission, and today we heard rather less about the Marshall inquiry. Lord Marshall said that the GLC had never carried out the specific role intended for it. It did not carry out its true strategic leadership role, which perhaps was in Herbert's mind when he chaired the Royal Commission.
Thoughts on the abolition of the GLC have not come about because of the chap called Livingstone taking power in county hall on 8 May after the electorate had elected McIntosh to lead the GLC Labour majority. As a London Conservative, I recollect the talk in 1977 when Sir Horace Cutler led the Conservatives to a great victory in the GLC election. He told the London electorate that the housing empire which the GLC had been building up would be devolved to the boroughs. Conservatives, including Sir Horace, said that if that happened, there would be little left for the GLC to do. The ambulance service and land drainage had already been devolved. In the past few years, the GLC has been running the transport service as a political football.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Tracey: The transport service is now to be taken away as well. Surely it is obvious that the GLC is superfluous.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: I shall not give way.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, despite the fact that I had to jog his memory about giving way. He is wrong to say that land drainage and ambulance powers were devolved. Those powers were taken from the GLC and given to quangos, and that is the point. They were not devolved to the boroughs. The hon. Gentleman's argument would be stronger if those powers had been given to the boroughs, but he should recollect that they were not.

Mr. Tracey: I accept the point of linguistics, that those powers were not devolved, but they were taken away. By 1979–80, when housing had been taken from the GLC's empire, there was little left for the GLC to do. Feeling on this matter grew strongly in the Conservative party. There was talk that the GLC was superfluous and a complete waste of money. Just as there was talk in the Labour party about the abolition of the shire counties, there was talk in the Conservative party at all levels about the abolition of the GLC. Large majorities in Conservative-controlled councils passed motions stating that the abolition policy should be in the Conservative party manifesto during the general election campaign. I found overwhelming support for that policy during the campaign. I remind Opposition


Members that opinion polls, such as one in June 1983, carried out before the GLC began spending £3 million on political propaganda, said that the GLC was an overtly political body. It is interesting that fewer than 2 per cent. of the people questioned could name their GLC member. That shows the significance of the GLC in the minds of the London public.

Mr. Wareing: How many people in Surbiton know who the hon. Gentleman is?

Mr. Tracey: The electorate were speaking with conviction during the June election campaign, when they said that they wished to see the end of the GLC. I believe, having talked to many of them since then, that their minds have not been changed in any way, despite the millions of pounds spent by the GLC on hoardings and advertising in the national newspapers.

Mr. Boyes: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine a scenario in which the GLC was Conservative-controlled under the leadership of Sir Horace Cutler? Would the Conservative party still have gone ahead with abolition, and then installed Ken Livingstone as the leader?

Mr. Tracey: That is probably meant to be a facetious point.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Sir Michael. I assure you, Sir Michael, that my point was meant to be serious. That would have been the result if the Conservatives had been in power. If they had carried out exactly the same policy, the logical conclusion would have been that Mr. Livingstone would have been installed.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Michael Shaw): That is not a point of order for me to consider, but I believe that the hon. Member has made his point.

Mr. Tracey: I shall deal with the election point in greater detail. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred to Mr. Livingstone being appointed as the leader, but we do not know who would have been appointed in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Mr. Livingstone appeared suddenly on the scene in 1981, the day after the electorate elected Mr. McIntosh the leader of the GLC. We do not know who will lead the interim council, after the Bill has been passed and the GLC has run its full life. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question factually.

Mr. Corbyn: How many leaders have there been from the Conservative group on the GLC since the last GLC election? On what date were they elected? Was it made clear during the election campaign that the leader of the Conservative group might be changed after the election? Who is that person?

Mr. Tracey: I shall not set about answering those questions, which I do not believe are in order in a discussion on the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is time that we returned to discussing the amendments, wide though they are.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Michael. The amendments are playing for time. The verdict of Londoners, especially about the GLC, has been clear. The GLC is superfluous and should be abolished. The vote of Londoners in the general election clearly pointed that out. The Conservative party won 56 of the 84

seats in Greater London. I believe that that is the largest total we have won in any comparable general election. I believe that Londoners, as I said at the beginning, expect the Government to abolish the GLC as efficiently as possible. That is what we are proposing.
I wish to deal with the election options that face us. In May 1985, the GLC will have completely run its life of four years of power and will then cease to be. It would have been quite irresponsible to spend £1 million or so on financing an election in London to elect members to a GLC which will not exist as such in a further 11 months. What is the other option? It is to appoint members to a transitional council from the councils that will be taking over responsibility in Greater London. That makes the most sense. The councils that will be taking over the power will continue until 1986. I am sure that that makes good sense. It is plainly cost-effective to do as the Bill proposes.

Mr. Wareing: During the course of this debate, many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the main Bill. They have objected to the measure before us this evening on the grounds that it prejudices a future decision on the main Bill. The longer that I listened to the Secretary of State, the more convinced I became that this is the main Bill. When we consider the Government's strategy in relation to the large conurbations, we must ask ourselves how this measure is related to those millions of people outside who are looking for better housing, jobs and improvements in their services.
Only a few people can attend the Strangers Gallery. If they were to listen to the debate, they would say, 'What has this to do with the real economic problems facing the nation at present?" The answer is that it has nothing to do with them. Party political prejudice is the motive behind the Government's policy. That is the real strategy and that is why this Bill is the main Bill.
The Government have not made up their mind how the services, for example on Merseyside, which I seek to represent, will be devolved—if that is the correct word. "Taken away" is, I believe, a more correct description. The Secretary of State told the Committee that the main burden of his argument was the expense of an unnecessary tier of government. However, he has not been able to tell the House what will take its place. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said that many of the services that are being taken away from the GLC will not go back whence they came—to Surrey and Essex county councils and Croydon borough council, for example. By the same token, those services that are being taken away from Cheshire and Lancashire will not go back to Cheshire county council or Lancashire county council. Those people who believe that the services will go in their direction — to the Conservative-controlled councils which existed before the 1974 reorganisation—should forget it.
The Secretary of State gave the game away every time he said that if we do not have the Bill now, "We will be too late to cancel the elections in 1985." The whole exercise is about cancelling the 1985 elections. The strategy is aimed at taking power away from his political opponents. That is the name of the game. That is why we are debating this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred to the Cabinet Committee Misc/95. As the Secretary of State has admitted, there was an argument in that Cabinet


Committee between cancelling the elections or extending the term of office of the current councillors. As I understand it, he won the day. He was the culprit who was in favour of cancelling the elections. The Tory party dare not have London-wide or Merseyside-wide elections because it knows already what the results are likely to be.
The Secretary of State says that he has been under great pressure. He kept using the term, "I am under great pressure." I know that he is under great pressure from his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. From where else is the pressure coming? Is it coming from the Merseyside chamber of commerce, the Archbishop of Liverpool, the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool or the business interests in Merseyside? None of them is in favour of the Government's proposals. The real pressure come from — I believe his name is Seldom Glummer — the chairman of the Conservative party.
8.45 pm
We are told that the bodies we are discussing are inefficient, but no evidence has been put before the Committee to show that a more efficient reorganisation is on the way.
Before last Thursday, I should have had to complain, as my hon. Friends from Greater London complain, that a change of party control would come about with this reorganisation. On Merseyside, before last Thursday's district elections, the probability was that the transitional council would probably have been hung, with the Liberal-SDP section holding the balance of power. I have news for the Secretary of State. Following last Thursday's district elections, there will be a Labour majority on the transitional council. He has lost. He should have rushed this legislation through more quickly.
In Liverpool, only three out of 34 Conservative candidates were successful, in Knowsley district, only four out of 34 were successful, and in St. Helens only 3 out of 18 were successful. Even in Conservative Sefton only 11 out of 24 Conservative candidates were successful. Only in Wirral—where the figures were 12 out of 22, barely half—was the Conservative party able to say that more than 50 per cent. of its candidates were successful in the election.
This is precipitate action by the Government without any inquiry. This group of amendments calls for an investigation into the needs of local government and the failings of local government. Before all previous reorganisations there was a long period of discussion and examination. It has been said that before the reorganisations of 1888 and 1894 there were decades of thought and inquiry.
Between 1888 and the end of the second world war there was a long period when there was much discussion but no precipitate action. Legislation was passed in 1926 to make it difficult for boroughs to acquire county borough status because after that date such a move needed private Bill legislation. There were local government boundary commissions between 1945 and 1949 before any changes were brought about. In 1958, before the Local Government Act, commissions were set up, White Papers were discussed in the House of Commons and even the Local Government Act 1948 only set up commissions to look into special and general review areas. There was a long discussion before change came about.
However, the motives then were the motives of Governments attempting to reform the local government system, not the motives of party political prejudice. They wanted to see what the problems of local government were and how they could be dealt with—problems such as overspending, duplication of various local authority services in the same area and wide disparities in size and resources between local authorities. Those were the motives that led to reorganisation, but reorganisation only after long-thought-out examination by commissions such as the Herbert and Redcliffe-Maud.
Here we are being expected, within a few months of a general election in which the Government had no commitment to the Bill, to rush ahead with legislation to abolish elections without a full inquiry into the needs of local government. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said, there is a vehicle by which the Secretary of State could, without further legislation, carry out this inquiry, by looking to section 48 of the Local Government Act 1972, which places a duty on the local government boundary commission for England to review all local government areas not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years after 1 April 1974. We are now in that period, and the Secretary of State could have taken action along those lines.
We are witnessing a totalitarian-inspired Government flying in the face of the democratically expressed wishes of a quarter of the population. They talk about having a mandate, but they do not have one. It has been a longstanding constitional practice that when a section of the population will be affected by a Bill going through the House, that section will be consulted. For example, if it affects teachers, teachers' organisations will be consulted. If it is the medical profession, the British Medical Association and other representatives of the medical profession are consulted. Some hon. Member was fishing around for some knowledge of the Secretary of State's expertise, and I can tell him that the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the learned legal profession. I hesitate to call him learned when I am discussing this Bill, but if the right hon. Gentleman's profession were being affected by a Bill, the Law Society and the Bar Council would be consulted. Now, the people of Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, west midlands, south Yorkshire and Greater London should be consulted. In so far as consultations have taken place, by means of local elections in all areas outside London—

Mr. Robert Parry: Can the Secretary of State say whether there has been consultation with the Tory group on Merseyside county council, which is opposed to the abolition of the council?

Mr. Wareing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The leaders of the Conservative group on Merseyside county council are 100 per cent. against this proposition. I do not believe that it is because some of those individuals are there to further their own ambitions—not a bit of it. Many of them have been in local government for many years and have served on city and district councils and are now serving on Merseyside county council.
Even the Liberal group on the council which has in the past expressed some reservations, is now completely opposed to what the Government are proposing. It believes that there should be some form of regional government.


Many Labour Members would be willing to look at the metropolitan county councils and the GLC if what they were looking at was how best to improve local government, not only in efficiency but in accountability.
All that Merseyside has from the Government is the movement away from the democratically accountable organs in our area. The city council is now at threat, largely because of the Government's rigidity. The Merseyside county council was prepared to clear up the south docks site in the city and to take action to revitalise the region, but it was ignored. Even Sir Kenneth Thompson, who was chairman of the Conservative administration in Merseyside, was opposed to the setting up of that quango, the Merseyside development corporation. He was a Minister in a Tory Government before the Tory party was taken over by Right-wing extremists.
Although many of us are hoping for the success of the International Garden Festival, which is Merseyside development corporation's child, we believe that, given the resources, the elected council would have been better able to reform and revitalise the region, not only through flower beds, trees and ornamental shrubs but by dealing with some of the real priorities.
The Government are not interested in that. I believe that they should now draw back, although I have no great hopes of that. I hope that there will be a sufficient number in their ranks here and in the other place to make them think again. I am sure that there are many on the Conservative Benches who do not have to listen to the monologue that no doubt Cabinet meetings are these days. Many of them have the guts to realise that there must be democratic accountability in a plural society; the accountability of servants to the public.
In Merseyside, there will be considerable opposition. I do not believe that trade unionists will lift a finger to ensure that democracy is stifled in our region. If the Secretary of State believes that he has a fight on with Liverpool he will have a harder one, with greater cause in some respects—the cause of democracy—when he takes on Merseyside.

9 pm

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I wish to make only a brief speech on this issue, because many of the points have been covered already. One of the things that people in government tend to forget, whether they are Conservative or Labour, is the effect that they have upon those in local government who do not expect to be loved, any more than anyone in politics does, but expect to be respected for their job. Let us consider the 1972 Bill that became the legislation to set up the metropolitan counties and the GLC. I do not know enough about the metropolitan councils to comment upon them now, but many of us who were involved in local government then were against the great nonsense that the Government of the day went in for.
I remember when Sir Frank Griffin, Alderman Neville Bosworth and I went to see the late Sir Graham Page and the then Secretary of State for the Environment. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That was a Conservative Government."] Does that really matter? We told them that it was nonsense to demolish the great unitary authorities of this country and dissipate the services to new county authorities. We were told that we were very biased and did not know what we were talking about. One resents that attitude if one has done something for many years. When someone has done

a job for six months, he is prone to say that. We were told that the new arrangements would last for generations. They have lasted, creaking and groaning, for about 10 years.
The Bill, if I may say so, was virtually drafted on the back of an envelope, because it seemed a good idea at the time. Some of us were originally against the setting up of the metropolitan counties because of the damage that it would do to the real fabric of local government in the areas with the greatest problems, such as those cities with vast populations and equally vast problems. They have become the Cinderellas of the story. The Government and others have challenged local authorities, saying that they are solving this or that problem. However, local government in the great areas such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds does not need to be continually interfered with by one do-gooding or politicised Minister after another.
The city of Birmingham does not want to be told that if it behaves itself it might get back the police or the fire departments after the Government have set up one of these wretched quangos. I suppose that they must be called nonelected elected quangos, as they will be nominated from elected representatives.
Many people do not understand local government, including most Ministers, although I am sure that the Secretary of State understands it better than most. I should like to refresh his memory. Let us consider what was done with the water industry. The changed industry was one of those white-hot hopes. It was thought that the water industry should be modernised and made more efficient and answerable.
My water rate, for example, has increased about 25 times since the new system came into operation. The press are no longer able to go to meetings of the Severn-Trent water authority; nor are the public allowed to attend. The authority issues statements as if from a Cabinet meeting, telling people what it wants them to know. I do not call that being answerable to the public. Yet nominated elected representatives serve on the Severn-Trent water authority. When the Birmingham part of the authority was run by the city of Birmingham water department, the water rate was so low that one can hardly remember what it cost Now the water rate is higher than my rates were only 10 years ago. Such is progress and answerability.
Continual changes are taking place in local government, whether we are changing the functions or whether the police or fire departments are being ripped away from the city of Birmingham to go into some other authority. We are told that if we behave ourselves we might get them back in due course, but if you believe that you will believe anything.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must refer to the amendments at some time.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I can do so now. I am referring to amendment No. 72. I am making out a case for an inquiry. I am only pointing out all the dreadful things that have gone on that make an inquiry necessary.
Another reason why an inquiry is necessary can be seen if one thinks of the rate support grant. I remember the problems in 1979. Once again, GREA and so on were going to introduce a change for the better and stability. All that has been introduced is a Whitehall roulette where one


has to keep on double-guessing. If someone guesses correctly, the rules are changed because they might cost too much.
I must tell the Government, and any future Government, that if they really want local government to be as efficient and thrusting as it was many years ago before most of us were born, they must realise that the idea that somehow or other somebody sitting in an office in Whitehall can know what goes on in Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham is a great nonsense. The great city of Birmingham was born out of people such as the Chamberlains and the Lloyds, who first came and saw an opportunity to do something good for their city. They were given the freedom to do something good for their city. They were not continually messed about with as one Minister after another thought up some idea, believing that the man in Whitehall knew best. Birmingham built itself into a great city for its people because it was allowed to be run without being continually looked at by those who frankly do not understand it and do not care for it. To most people who sit in Whitehall, it is another way of working from 9 to 5. It is another way of getting through the day until they get to a more exciting Department.
If, God help us, we are going to have change as a result of the wonderful Bill which is to come in November, the House needs to pledge itself to local government and to the people who, frankly, work as hard as we do, for virtually nothing. It must pledge that we will not keep on messing about with local government in another five or 10 years because someone else on the back of an envelope thinks that he has a wonderful idea. If we have an inquiry, we must settle the future of local government for some time ahead. It is not fair to say, as it was literally said at that famous trial in France, "It was a wicked dog. When I kicked it, it bit me." That is what we are often saying to local government today.
What is wrong with local government today is that, like a condemned prisoner, it never knows whether it will be shot in the morning or set free. The idea that this Government, and Governments before them, whether Labour or Conservative, have somehow or other to keep on messing about with local government because that will mean good service for people is not right. It will not. Let the local people decide the service that they need. Let them chuck out those of us in local government, or let them reward us. One thing that has been learnt from last Thursday is that local government is not just about rates; it is about service as well.
An inquiry would give the Government time to think through what in the end might well be a good plan. Above all, it would at least give all hon. Members a chance to set local government once and for all on what we hope is the right path. We should not keep on saying every five to 10 years, "We have some great news for you boys in local government. We in Westminster are perfect but we will mess you about in the town hall." We must start to build real confidence again. I tell the Government for certain that there are more dispirited people, whether Conservative or Labour representatives, in local government than I have ever known in my 24 years in local government. They are dispirited, not because they do not want change but because they have to keep on double-guessing.
In Birmingham we want to get back the calibre of the people that we had and could have again — the Chamberlains, the Lloyds, the Pritchetts, the Frank Griffins, the Neville Bosworths, the Bradbeers, and the Prices and Whattons on the Labour side. But they will not come. Today they are made the Aunt Sallies. They are made almost to be toy town figures. However, unless we get good people back into local government, we shall succeed in driving out the good, and we shall have to put others in to run local government; in the end, it will not be good for local people.
Whatever changes are made, the real reason why we need an inquiry is to enable us to pause in this helter-skelter of change for the sake of it. It may seem a good idea at the time, but I do not accept that all change is for the good. Anyone who reads the history of his own authority—in my case, Birmingham—discovers that the one thread that runs through it is that it has drawn people to serve their areas. They have been people of good will and not people who have come in just because they are politicised.
We have problems, because people have joined local government for political reasons and not just out of a wish to serve their communities. There are burdens which everyone has to bear, but if we are to get the right people back to serve their areas, they must feel at least that they know which areas they are serving, which people they are serving and which cause or causes they are serving. They cannot continue to be treated to a diatribe on the evils of those who serve local government and to complaints about the idiots who are supposed to be involved in it.
We have to change that attitude. It will be difficult, but I hope that my Government will take it to heart that, in saying that, I mean no criticism of the Bill and what they want to do. I have no joy in county councils. However, once we put through a rotten Bill, as we did in 1972, we shall underline one of the worst features of what is being proposed now, which is to get rid of what I still believe was a poor organisation but putting in its place elected, semi-elected or nominated quangos. They will not be cheaper and when, in five or 10 years, we look at the system again, we shall see no benefit from it. All the good will and all the power in our areas will have been dissipated more and more to outside bodies.
What keeps a family together is being in the pot together. That is what made Birmingham great. Under the county system the police went here, transport there, the airport to another place and planning to God knows where. People had to fill in a huge number of forms or ask 10 different Ministers to get any problem settled. It is not surprising that people serving local government decided to jack it in. Now, instead of Birmingham getting back what it should have—the police and fire services, the airport and planning responsibilities—it will be offered a vague promise that if it behaves and all turns out well, with a bit of luck it will get its police back again. That is not good enough.
We were disappointed by the Chairman's selection of amendments. For many of us, the important vote was to be whether these services, which should never have been taken away in the first place, should be restored to local authorities. No good has come from taking them away.
Let us make Birmingham a great city again, with Liverpool, when its problems have been settled, and


Manchester and Leeds. We have it in our power to restore local government to its former standing. If we do not do it now, we shall never do it.
Let us have an inquiry. We do not want another Redcliffe-Maud, but let us stand back and give ourselves time to do what is right for our great conurbations, which is where our problems lie. I do not speak of the counties. I do not speak of Surrey or of Sussex. The only problem there relates to the temperature of the wine or the sunshine on the grape. The problems in Birmingham are vital, as are those in Liverpool and Manchester. What is important is what happens in our cities and to our people. That is what will make the country great. It does not involve what happens in the sunshine valleys of the south. If we do not rebuild our cities and keep their people happy and contended, what price the sunlit valley?

Mr. Harry Cohen: The speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was one of a traditional Conservative who believes in local government but who has been betrayed in many ways by his Government.
Yesterday Her Majesty the Queen opened the Thames barrier, which will keep Londoners out of deep water, and she paid a warm tribute to the GLC in the process. Today, with this Bill, it is the Government who are in deep water. The speeches from Conservative Back-Bench Members demonstrated that, because the Bill introduces major constitutional changes into our democratic and traditional local government, especially the abolition of the 1985 election. As many hon. Members have said, it is a serious step. No Bill laid before Parliament in recent times has sought to abolish a franchise without replacing it by another. The most moderate way in which I can describe the cancellation of the elections is that it is constitutionally and democratically unsound. At the very least, there should be an inquiry into the Government's proposals, which is why 1 support the amendments that demand such an inquiry.
The Government have claimed that they have a mandate for the proposals. They have no mandate for this Bill, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) said on Second Reading. He reminded the Secretary of State that the Government had a mandate to abolish rates after a previous election, but when they discovered what the alternatives were, they rightly abandoned that commitment. The Government should recognise that all the alternatives to the present elected councils are worse.
The Government have not even put alternative arrangements to the electorate. They never told the electorate that the councils would be replaced not by directly elected bodies but by quangos. Had they put it to the electorate, the Government would have discovered the views of the public on quangos.
During the election campaign last year the Secretary of State and many other Conservative Members talked about savings of £120 million and more. Those figures were not substantiated then, and are still unsubstantiated. The Government put forward non-existent savings in a false prospectus in their manifesto. Nor did the manifesto talk about abolishing elections and disfranchising 13 million people to stop them voting in their areas. London will be almost the only capital city in the world that will not elect its own regional government. The results are clear, as the

facts are coming home to people. All the polls show that this measure and the Government's proposals are unpopular. A poll was taken by The Standard at the end of March on the abolition of the Greater London council. The number of Londoners who approve of the abolition of the GLC is 22 per cent., and the number against is 64 per cent., with 17 per cent. saying that they did not know.
In a follow-up poll in Finchley, the Prime Minister's constituency, of all voters—and these are Conservative voters — 66 per cent. were against the abolition proposals of the Government, and only 15 per cent. were in favour. On the question of the cancellation of elections, in Finchley, 68 per cent. of all voters are against the Government's proposals, and 15 per cent. are in favour of them. On the question whether Conservative voters want the GLC elections abolished, 46 per cent. are against the Government's proposals, and only 30 per cent. are in favour of them. The proposals are therefore widely unpopular with Conservative voters in London, and, indeed, in the metropolitan counties. It is not the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister who speak for Conservative voters—

Mr. Cowans: My hon. Friend is making a magnificent case. Does he realise that there is no necessity for the Brill, and that the Conservatives are frightened of the ballot box? While they may often mesmerise people by talking about the ballot box, when the chips are down, and the Conservatives are going to lose, they prevent the electorate from voting. Is this not the intention of the Bill?

Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend and, indeed, with the comment of the hon. Member for Selly Oak, who said, "Let the people decide." That should be the philosophy on local government.
Even the Government's consultation process has been shown to be widely unpopular. As I mentioned at Question Time today, with reference to the proposals in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", only 91 representations in London were in favour of the Government's proposals, and the Government and their friends had to go round touting for some of those.
As is shown in the Government's published figures, which are available in the Library, 117,400 people have made representations in one form or another that they are not in favour of the abolition proposals, and that is in advance of a major petition that is due to be presented to the House later this month. I suspect that the same situation prevails in the metropolitan councils. The climate can be judged not only by opinion polls and the consultation procedures, but by the local council elections that took place last week. The local government plans of the Government were given high priority in the published manifestos, and the Government have received an overwhelming thumbs down for their proposal
Given the weight of opposition to the proposals, it is wrong for the Government to push ahead with far-reaching structural changes for local government, particularly as this has not been preceded by any deep thought. No independent or academic study has been undertaken. Before the Local Government Acts of 1963 and 1972 were enacted, Royal Commissions were appointed to give the proposals detailed consideration. No such study, even of a limited nature, as suggested by some of the amendments, has been undertaken prior to the presentation of the Bill.
In the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", the Government said in support of their proposals that they would make local government
cheaper, simpler and more accessible".
Those words have been used to justify all sorts of other Bills as well. However, there is a great deal of doubt about whether local government will be cheaper as a result. In addition, it cannot be argued that it will be simpler to have a proliferation of quangos and to split up the service now offered among all sorts of bodies. How can that be simpler? Furthermore, despite what the Government say about making local government more accessible to the people, getting rid of councillors means that people will not know who to go to. They will not be able to go to their former councillors.
I turn to the costs involved, as they are an important factor. Anyone who knows anything about local government knows that reorganisations invariably cost more money, not less. There are many reasons for that, such as redundancy payments, initial costs and the initial duplication that has to be sorted out. However, the Government have ignored that. Instead, they prefer to rely on the unsubstantiated "evidence"—as the Secretary of State called it—of £120 million in savings.
At no stage did the Secretary of State produce any facts to back up his argument. What has his Department done? Does it have any detailed evidence? If not, why not? If so, why has that evidence not been presented for Members to Parliament to scrutinise? Instead, the right hon. Gentleman wants to rely on the Price Waterhouse study, which was commissioned by six Conservative councils, two of which have now withdrawn. The study was carried out in four days, so how can that be the detailed analysis that is supposed to be the foundation of a fundamental reform of local government?

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is underselling himself, as he has vast experience of local government both as a councillor and as an employee. Does he not believe that the elected representatives of a local authority are much better at keeping a check on spending and on the objectivity of local government than those employed by a quango, who may often have the same interests as those appointed to that quango?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, that is certainly so. My experience of local government leads me to accept that view.
Throughout, the Secretary of State has said that removing a tier of government will mean automatic savings for local government, but that is not true. He argued that before when, as Secretary of State for Social Services, he abolished the area health authorities. He argued then that that would cut a tier of government and automatically reduce bureaucracy and expenditure. But on 14 November 1983, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in reply to a Conservative Member, admitted that the number of full-time administrative and clerical staff in the NHS had risen by 600 nationally between September 1981 and June 1983, or during and after the period of reorganisation. Therefore, the Secretary of State cannot argue that getting rid of a tier automatically means more savings. The opposite is often true, as one finds more and more bureaucrats in these proliferating quangos. The real evidence is to be found in the Coopers and Lybrand report. That is the only detailed

study that we know of, unless the Department has done something. The best summary of the costs argument can be found in the Surveyor magazine.
9.30 pm
Let us analyse some of the key points in the article on the Coopers and Lybrand report. It begins:
No net savings are likely to be made through the proposed abolition of metropolitan county councils and reorganisation could produce significant extra costs. The verdict is that of management consultants.
The article continues:
It is perhaps the most important document to have appeared on the question of abolition costs, being the only independent, factual study based on information from all the met counties as well as nearly half the met districts. Coopers and Lybrand's 52-page report presents two sets of estimates . . . But even the more optimistic of the two—assuming a high degree of cooperation between the districts in each met county area—produces a final total of between £4 million pa saved and £9·5 million pa in extra costs as a result of change.
The article states that the change will involve the loss of between 450 and 550 jobs and continues:
Coopers and Lybrand's second estimate takes a less optimistic—and in the consultants' opinion, more realistic—view, assuming that the met district will achieve a more limited degree of co-operation. They comment:
'We think it very unlikely that a uniformly high level of cooperation would be achieved …' the total cost of the Government's changes would be much higher, ranging from extra costs of £36 million pa to £61 million pa.
That summary of the report blows the Government's analysis of costs sky-high. The Secretary of State should recognise that. I believe that he has recognised it, because the article also states that he withdrew from co-operating with the compilers of the report after the first draft was made available.
Not only is cost involved, but disruption, standards of service and fragmentation. NALGO, which should know about such things, said:
Abolition of these authorities will lead to an inefficient hotch-potch of quangos, joint boards and voluntary joint committees. The fragmentation and duplication that will result has led many people to believe that the Government's proposal is based not on making local government more efficient but on removing democratically-elected councils to whose policy the Government is hostile.
In addition, the important strategic role of local government will be lost and will not be replaced. The Government are on a loser.
The Secretary of State is taking unprecedented powers in the clause. Such powers have never been taken by a Secretary of State except in wartime or emergency legislation. The Secretary of State will have the power to modify the Local Government Act 1972 or the Representation of the People Act 1983. He will have unfettered powers, subject to a mere statutory instrument, to meddle with local authority elections.
The Bill is also about abolishing elections. The Government are setting a grave precedent. They are moving down the slippery slope taken by Chile, Argentina, Pakistan and other totalitarian states that have abolished elections. An inquiry, as proposed in the amendments, is the bare minimum that would be acceptable; otherwise the whole process that the Secretary of State has embarked upon can be seen as nothing more than political expediency: the Government do not like councils being controlled by parties of a different political complexion so they intend to abolish those councils.
At the beginning of my remarks I referred to the Thames barrier. That is an important engineering feat. The


contraption will turn round and almost stand on its head when it is needed. The Conservatives, who are supposed to support local democracy, will be standing on their heads if they support the Bill because it is about drowning regional democratic local government.

Mr. Allen McKay: Many points of view have been put forward but it is right that I should put on record the views of the people of south Yorkshire and in particular of my constituents. If the Secretary of State will not take notice of the arguments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, he should take notice of the arguments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who has put forward clearly and without doubt the feelings of true Conservatism about local government and local democracy. Although we are not on the same side I share his views.
It is sad to hear some people say that we should not have elections because they will only cost money. It comes back to the old saying that when money comes into it, democracy flies through the window. If money is the only factor to be taken into account, the Secretary of State should consider the alternative of extending the term of councils for a further 12 months until their abolition, if it has to take place.
We should consider seriously the possibility of holding an inquiry before the Government repeat the terrible mistake of the 1970s. We heard the same arguments then. We were told that reorganisation would lead to more efficiency and a reduction in rates. For a long time there was more efficiency but there was a rise in rates. On top of that, when things are starting to go right, the Government bring forward another Bill to abolish the rights of people to elect their representatives.

Mr. Cowans: Perhaps my hon. Friend will cast his mind in a certain direction. Is it not remarkable that the Government make the case that the removal of a tier of local government will save vast amounts of money? If we follow the logic, why have the Government not included the shire county councils in the Bill? Have they not proposed the removal of the shires because those councils agree with the Government policies?

Mr. McKay: I agree with my hon. Friend. It must appear to people outside Parliament that this is not being done for the sake of efficiency or to save money but only because the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Government do not agree with the councils, and because the councils have refused to toe the line the Prime Minister wanted. Therefore, we come back to the old adage that if the Government cannot get the councils to agree, they will throw them out. The economic argument is just a sham.
The purpose of the amendments is to try to persuade the Secretary of State and the Committee that it would be wrong to cancel the 1985 elections until an independent inquiry into metropolitan local government has taken place. There should be an inquiry into its workings, its financial position and the services it provides. What will happen to those services?
The councils are progressive by nature and not unresponsive to change. They accept that there is room for improvement. They would welcome an inquiry based upon a fair assessment of the current system. Such an inquiry

would give the Secretary of State an opportunity to prove his words at the Conservative party conference, when he said:
I believe the burden of proof is upon the man who advocates change. If he does not satisfy that burden of proof that change should not be made.
That is a gut statement, and the right hon. Gentleman should uphold it now.
Previous reorganisations have followed wide-ranging inquiries. Information has been collected in public and has provided a rational basis for evaluation. After all, the Greater London council has been established for less than 20 years, and the metropolitan counties for less than 10 years. There is no need for change now, but if there is to be change there must be an inquiry first. An inquiry should be held if only to determine where the Government went wrong last time. They advocated change and introduced the metropolitan counties and the GLC. What is to happen to the service that they provide? People vote for those services at the elections.
What will be the position of the selected borough councillors? Will there be enough of them, or does the Secretary of State believe that there are so many of them not doing any work now that they can take on additional work? What is to happen to the areas that those councillors represent? Their time will be taken up looking after county council problems. Borough councillors already face problems with their employers and may find it difficult to take on additional duties. All those matters should be considered by an inquiry.
Where will the money come from for the quangos, upon whom will they be precepted, and how many bodies will be precepted? What additional staff will be needed? In any reorganisation, the staff is not decreased, it is increased. I have been through three reorganisations of the National Coal Board and one local government reorganisation, and I know that there is always an increase rather than a decrease in staff.
Has the Secretary of State taken into consideration other matters of local concern—for example, the effect of such a Bill on the local economy? If county councils are abolished, what will happen to the local economy? Would not the right hon. Gentleman do better to ask the Audit Commission, which has extensive powers and influence, to study the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of local authorities? Why not ask that body to publish a report before any decision is reached?
It is not only hon. Members and councillors who believe that the Secretary of State is wrong—the general public believe that also. One of my constituents, Mr. Nicholas Wood, wrote to the Secretary of State but unfortunately has not received a reply. He said:
'Costly and inefficient' has been replaced by"—
the Secretary of State now saying that the councils—
found it impossible to establish a proper role for themselves".
My constituent asks whether the Secretary of State has asked local people for their opinion. The right hon. Gentleman is taking away the means to ask people what they think by the abolition of elections. Mr. Wood says that the Secretary of State makes it
impossible for them to comment on your opinion by withdrawing their democratic right to vote on it in 1985.
He accuses the Secretary'of State of some of the things of which I also accuse him, principally that the abolition proposals are a political move.
The Yorkshire Baptist Association has looked at this and says that however it looks at the position as presented by the Secretary of State and the Government, it still thinks it is undemocratic
to scrap local government elections in 1985 and to create more Joint Boards and Quangos at a greater distance from the electors.
When the Secretary of State claims that his proposals are in line with democracy and will bring power back to the people, his words drop strangely from his lips. In fact, he is taking away the rights of the people. The Secretary of State can put matters right by having a proper inquiry before a decision is made.

Mr. Cowans: Has my hon. Friend considered offering a challenge to the Secretary of State? If the right hon. Gentleman will accept the amendment and hold elections, Labour Members will stand or fall by the ballot box, of which the Conservatives are frightened.

Mr. McKay: I agree with my hon. Friend that if the right hon. Gentleman held elections we would be prepared to stand or fall by the ballot box. In the south Yorkshire area, through the ballot box, the people are returning more Labour councillors with large majorities to the local councils and the county council. The public have shown their desire for local government to remain democratic and not to be run by central Government. They want the right to vote for what they consider to be the needs of their area. The Secretary of State is removing that right from them and he and the Government will for ever be condemned for what they are doing.

Mr. Heath: I expressed my view on Second Reading and followed my expression of view with my vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) remarked that the Government would win the vote but that they had already lost the argument, and that they had lost it on Second Reading. The fact that the Government have lost the argument has not been due in large measure to the efforts of the Opposition.
At any time in the last 100 years, any question affecting local government has been a major political event. The Opposition asked for this measure, as a constitutional Bill, to be taken on the Floor of the House. Yet, from what we have seen today, it might just as well have been taken in Committee upstairs. No more than the normal membership of a Committee have been sitting on the Opposition Benches throughout the debate, and we have not seen a sign of their leaders on the Front Bench, apart from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who moved the amendment. I am talking about the political battles that an Opposition are expected to wage in this Chamber, not of Opposition Members looking to Members of the governing party to support issues for which my party has, I believe, always stood.
Here we have a situation in which a Government are not only cancelling local elections but are terminating the services of all those who are councillors in the GLC and in the metropolitan councils and, at the same time, are imposing an appointed form of government over the whole of these areas, and in the course of doing that are changing the political complexion of the whole of the capital city.
Is that not a matter for political activity? But what do we see from Opposition Members, except a long-drawn-out debate which has emptied the Press Gallery, which will not be covered tomorrow—

Mr. Tony Banks: They are coming back.

Mr. Heath: Because of me, not because of Opposition Members, who have put off a Division till a time when nobody will be interested in the result. That is how Labour Members show themselves to be the most incompetent Opposition for a century. That is the situation in Parliament today, not only on this issue but on practically every question with which the country is faced.
I have some positive matters to put to the Secretary of State because this is a serious situation and tremendous matters are at stake. Local government in itself is of vital importance, but the services which our constituents—the people of the country—get are also of vital importance.
It is a matter of the needs and requirements of the British people being met through local government and not only a matter of money, though that is important. What is the best way of meeting these needs? No effective arguments have been deployed on that question and we have not had the information with which any Government should provide the House of Commons prior to it reaching decisions.
We should remember that we are discussing an amendment which provides for an inquiry to take place. To me it is no answer to say that the Opposition have said hitherto that they did not want an inquiry. That is of no concern to me. What matters is what the Conservative party has said in the past. We recognise that local government needs improvement from time to time; that is why provision was made in the 1972 legislation for a review of the new form of local government after 10 years. We all know that it takes time for any institution to settle down, especially governmental institutions, and 10 years was a reasonable period in which to review the new form of local government.
The Government had four years in their previous period of office to prepare for the review, but nothing was done. Why was nothing done? The answer is that the Government were not thinking of doing anything. We all know now that the proposals for local government were put into the Conservative party's manifesto at the last moment, without any proper consultation with the party or anyone concerned. Ever since, the Government have been trying to work out some alternative to replace that which they are now proposing to abolish. We all know that every civil servant in Whitehall who is concerned with this process is worried to death about the consequences. They, as well as members of political parties, have great experience of governmental administration.
Conservative Members who are urging that an inquiry should take place are not doing so to delay progress in local government. They are doing it so that the real facts that are found by an impartial body are made available and so that the solution of the problems and the improvement of local government can be found and made after a proper consideration of the problems. We all recognise that institutions need to change and to be improved.
The local government change of 1962 which involved the GLC was brought about by a Conservative Government. The 1972 change was brought about by another Conservative Government, and it had two main


purposes. The first was to create a form of local government which would be able to meet the needs of a modern country. Those needs where quite obviously not being met at at the time by the then units of government. That is why a commission was set up. Everyone realised what was lacking. It is still necessary to have an overall body which can deal with the problems which individual London boroughs are quite incapable of resolving. Anyone who represents a London constituency knows of the frictions between local government units in London. The units will not work together to solve the problems which need to be dealt with on an overall scale.
The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that it was wrong to cite the reports that had been made before previous legislation was introduced, because we took no notice of them. That was untrue of the Herbert report, which led to legislation involving the GLC. We did not take all its recommendations into account, especially in respect of ILEA, but everything was on the table for all to see, evaluate, discuss and take into account when we were dealing with the ensuing legislation.
In 1972 we did not accept all the recommendations of the then report, but we accepted a large part of it. We created the metropolitan councils to deal with the overall questions. The report said that institutions would be required to deal with those issues. It said also that a large and complex urban organisation had to have an overall body to deal with transport, planning and similar activities. Such bodies are still required. It is my view that they should be formed by directly elected representatives and not by another form of organisation.
The mistakes that we made in the 1970–74 Government were in the bodies which were created and appointed and not in those which were elected. My experience of social services organisations that are appointed is that they do not work as well as they should and that they do not work as well as elected bodies that are performing other functions. That is why I strongly opposed any measures leading to indirectly elected or appointed bodies, or joint bodies of various kinds. I do not believe that they will be effective. The purpose of an inquiry is to get the Secretary of State out of his present position, which is leading to a disastrous result. The GLC elections will be cancelled and the existing council appointments will be terminated. There will be an indirectly appointed body before we come to the new arrangement.
My right hon. Friend said that there was great confusion on the question of precedent, but he is causing the confusion by trying to draw an artificial distinction between cancelling the elections and what happens afterwards. My right hon. Friend said that he was following precedent in cancelling the elections, but there has never been a precedent in which elections were cancelled and the period of office of councillors was terminated at the same time. The confusion is occurring because my right hon. Friend will not recognise that these matters cannot be separated. That is a plain fact. It is an artificial intellectual performance to try to separate those elements.
If my right hon. Friend expects to give an air of respectability to his actions by claiming to follow precedent, he is kidding no one. Everyone knows exactly what is proposed, and people do not accept it. In continually putting the emphasis on following precedent, my right hon. Friend is undermining his credibility. In future, he should say that he is proposing something that

has not been done before—to cancel elections and at the same time terminate councillors' appointments. He may then impose by parliamentary' diktat an indirectly elected body, which may not emerge because councillors refuse to serve on it, that will change the political complexion of the capital city.
I beg my right hon. Friend not to keep on saying that he is following precedent or even trying to prove that he is following precedent for one part of the process. That no longer has any beneficial effect for him. An inquiry would get my right hon. Friend out of the present unsatisfactory position of producing a Bill which, we are told, asks us to "buy a pig in a poke". We shall be landed with a dog's breakfast. That is evident from all the discussions.
The position is constantly changing. The education authority will now be directly elected. Those changes are not satisfactory to the people of London. It is said that Londoners are urging greater speed in carrying on this process. For 22 of the 34 years in which I have represented my constituency, it has been part of the GLC. Before then, the constituency belonged to the county. It will have no opportunity of returning to the county, if that is its choice, after the abolition of the GLC.
My constituents are not urging the abolition of the GLC. They say that it may need reforming, but they want an elected body in its place. Every public opinion poll shows that that is so—not just by a trend, but by an overwhelming majority. I beg the Secretary of State to recognise the disastrous course that he is pursuing, to persuade his colleagues to face up to that fact and to have a proper inquiry to deal with the future. The inquiry need not take years, if its terms of reference are to bring about an improvement of the existing organisations. If that were done, I believe that we would have a much better basis on which to work.
My right hon. Friend said that bringing the service of councillors to an end is a different matter because it can be handed over to existing boroughs. That is not the case. Again, that is a fallacious argument. If this matter were transferred to the boroughs as they exist today, the result might be catastrophic, but at least my right hon. Friend would have an argument. That is not what is happening. We are told that this aspect will be transferred to a variety of bodies. We shall have an interim period.
We have already discussed the interim period on Second Reading, so I must not go over all the disadvantages again. There may very well be chaos. The Secretary of State can say that he is worried that, if councillors continue until the new organisation comes into being, some of them might not choose to work with him, or in general. He must weigh that against the chaos of this interim period, in which councillors may not want to serve and he will not get them to serve. But if they serve, they will not know anything about this form of government and will not be able to carry out their duties effectively, and he must consider the effect of that on the general position. I ask the Secretary of State to weigh that up carefully if he persists in this course. What is open to him—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Heath: All that it would need is a short enabling Bill which can be produced at any time between now and the time for the next local elections, saying that the elections are cancelled but that the councillors' term continues until the new organisation is introduced or it is decided not to change the organisation. That is all that is required, instead of producing this Bill, with all its dangers to the standing of the House of Commons, our party, which we are entitled to consider from this side of the Committee, and our democratic procedures.
I beg the Secretary of State to consider seriously the proposal which is now being put. The further he goes along this path, the more difficult it will become to take any action which will be acceptable not just to the people of the capital and the great conurbations but to people in this country generally. What is more, it will become less and less acceptable to people of our party as they realise the opportunities that will be given to another party when it comes into government, if it desires to quote this as a precedent and use it for its own actions.
We should have fought such a proposition if it had come from the Opposition, but not in the soft way that we have heard today. We would have fought it absolutely and completely. We must recognise that it is entirely unacceptable. We would never have allowed others to do it; it is time that we recognised that frankly and openly, and if the Secretary of State did, he would earn great respect.

Mr. Corbyn: It is curious to end a speech by attacking the Opposition for opposing something to which one is opposed. I cannot imagine that it will get the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) back into much favour with the leadership.
We are in an incredible position. Instead of facing up to the problems of Greater London and the metropolitan county areas and the many difficulties that go with them, the Government are trying to force through, in this disgraceful manner, a Bill to abolish elections. [Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Hon. Members may wish to resume their places in other bars, but I wish that those who are staying could be allowed to hear.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstong): Order. I hope that hon. Members who are leaving will leave quietly.

Mr. Corbyn: Clearly those hon. Members are not happy with what is being said. Most of them have not listened to what is being said in opposition to this disgraceful and tawdry Bill. When the Secretary of State speaks later he might care to tell the Committee what is going through his mind. The Secretary of State is former

councillor from the area where I served for nine years as a borough councillor, and he was also involved in the county council there. How would he have reacted if he had been told that his authority was about to become a quango and that his services as an elected member were no longer required? He is remembered, if not with affection, in the old Hornsey borough council, certainly for his sterling work in keeping floodlights outside his house during the three-day week while inside he was cleaning his teeth in the dark.
This Bill is a sudden turn-around in the history of elected bodies in London and the metropolitan councils. There is a history of a continuing struggle by the people in the urban areas for elected representatives because they know that the only way in which they can achieve the needs of housing, jobs, education, public health, drainage or road repairs—all the needs that matter for urban life—is through elected representatives.
This Bill is an attempt by the Government to remove that right of elected representatives. They are removing it under a cloak of secrecy. They are refusing to publish the details of opposition to their legislation and are refusing to say how many people have written in with opposition to their legislation. They have consistently refused to answer individual hon. Members' questions about what volume of opposition has come from their constituencies.
I have received several hundred letters from people in my constituency about their concern and their fear at the prospect of losing an elected authority across London, and they demand the right of election. Had those people the right to speak in this debate tonight, I am sure that not only would they show their opposition to the principles of the Bill, but they would tell the Government that if they are serious in proposals that would take away so many democratic rights for Londoners and the other metropolitan areas, the least that they can do is set up a commission of inquiry, in which the people's views can be heard. It is unprecedented for such a Bill to be proposed when people do not have the right to say what should go in place of what the Bill abolishes.
If people in my constituency of Islington, North, which is part of Greater London and is a poor, inner urban area, were to say anything to such a commission, they would be making a comparison between their experiences of an appointed authority—their local district health authority — and their experiences with the elected local government. Almost weekly, the health authority receives edicts from the DHSS via the regional health authority telling it that our Health Service is too good—we have too many hospitals, too many hospital beds, too many places for the elderly and mentally handicapped—and asking us to make cuts. Local people object to that, go back to the local quango and ask what can be done about it. The quango points up a tree to the next appointed quango, which points its fingers further up the tree to the Minister.
That can be compared with the people's experience of the elected local authority. If they do not like the way in which the local authority is administering the housing services or the way that roads are being repaired or the way that social service departments are being run, they have the right to go to a borough council. If they do not like the strategic decisions that are being made in London, they have the right to go to the elected members of the Greater London council.
There are a couple of points to be made about this. For example, where is the democracy in planning in London if elected representatives will no longer have the right to object to major road schemes or propose improvements in the railways? Instead, there will be an appointed quango, perhaps of interested parties. In any event, it will be an appointed quango that will not be interested in the views of the people in London, but merely interested in doing whatever the Minister tells it to do because that is the only place to which it will be answerable.
The Bill is a dangerous centralisation of power in the hands of Ministers. It is especially disgraceful that that dangerous centralisation of power should take place without publication of the views of the number of people who have objected to it or of the new methods proposed for government in London.
We know that of the 31 London borough councils, 13 have registered themselves as totally opposed to the legislation, four of them are opposed on major issues, three are neutral, eight give qualified support and three of them give unreserved support. In case Committee members did not know, the majority of London borough councils are controlled by the Conservative party. What notice have the Government taken of objections raised by Conservative borough councils, let alone Labour councils?
The same story can be heard in every metropolitan county where the proposals are being put into force. The only conclusion that can be drawn by hon. Members and the public in my constituency is that the Bill, particularly clause 1, is part of a political vendetta and an act of spite. The elected metropolitan councils and the GLC have sought to be good elected representatives of the people and to stand by the manifestos on which they fought elections. They have faced the problems of the people whom they represent, the spiral of decline in the inner cities, the loss of jobs and houses and the general loss of opportunity. The authorities have tried to regenerate the inner city areas.
The Government cannot tolerate that sort of opposition. They have adopted an off-with-their-heads formula and are trying to destroy local government as we know it. If hon. Members do not recognise that the destruction of elections at this level could lead to the destruction of democracy at many other levels they are failing in their duty as elected representatives of the people.
The Bill is the start of a dangerous spiral of decline in British democracy. The Government cannot stomach any sort of opposition at any level. They lecture the miners on the need for a ballot, yet they take away the right to a ballot from those in inner cities who face daily crises of existence and survival.
I hope that Committee members recognise the inherent dangers and, for once in their lives, will stand up and say that the most important thing is the right to vote and to elect representatives; the right not to be ruled over by hand-picked appointees of Ministers. That is what is at stake tonight.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I shall be brief, but I believe that the voice of Greater Manchester should be added to the roar of disapproval against these proposals. I have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). They both have different ideals.
The hon. Member for Selly Oak has a reputation in local government. He spoke from the heart, because he knows that the decline in democracy will have a disastrous effect upon local government. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup recognises the effects of the change on his party when he says that we are on a disastrous course. He is right to say that we are on a disastrous course. The Conservative party is moving to the Right so fast that it is frightening to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen among the long-standing members of the Conservative party.
Greater Manchester council, together with the other five metropolitan county councils, will be abolished by the Government without consultation or investigation. Amendment No. 2 is concerned with that. The government have published a White Paper suggesting that the county councils have found it difficult to establish a role and that the present system is a recipe for conflict and uncertainty. According to the White Paper, the abolition of the metropolitan counties would save money, after transitional costs have been taken into account. I hope the Secretary of State will explain to the Committee the Government's evidence to support that case.

Mr. Boyes: Does my hon. Friend remember that, when we debated the Bill on 11 April, the Secretary of State told us why the metropolitan counties were not co-operating and giving information to the Government. He said:
One consequence of the boycott of discussions has been that we have not yet had such information as we need to make a reasonably accurate assessment of the costs and savings.
He followed that up by saying:
The Government remain convinced that abolition will save money."—[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 413.]
Does my hon. Friend also realise that in April 1984 the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said:
It has become urgent for the Secretary of State to provide a detailed breakdown of the savings expected and clear guidance … on where and how economies should be obtained. Only if such evidence and guidance is forthcoming can the continued support of the business community for abolition be counted upon".
That reinforces my hon. Friend's point. The Secretary of State is convincing nobody.

Mr. Litherland: My hon. Friend is right. There have been so many quotations from the Secretary of State on democracy and local government that in a short time he will have to eat his words. He has been damned from his own mouth.
The assumptions that have been made against the metropolitan counties are unsupported by evidence. It is that evidence that we want to be shown. There is a complete lack of understanding of the machinery and the function of the services provided by the metropolitan counties.
Greater Manchester council is adamant that the proposals, if implemented, will lead to greater cost, reduced services and more bureaucracy and will take us further down the sinister path to increased centralism.
It has been said over and over again that the proposal to cancel local elections represents a fundamental attack on local democracy and will leave a void in local government. That will bring about disastrous effects on the services they now provide. In Greater Manchester that would involve the police and fire services, passenger transport, strategic planning, consumer protection, waste


disposal and economic development services. The destination of those services will not be made known, nor will they be debated in the House, until some future date. Yet the present controlling authorities will be abolished. Where is the democracy, the logic or sanity in such a decision?
The Secretary of State must realise from the responses that he has received—approximately 3,000—that there is overwhelming opposition across the political spectrum in local government to the Government's White Paper. Out of the 3,000 responses, how many were for and how many were against? I think that we would find that very few supported the proposals that are now before us and that the vast majority condemn the Government. I suggest that the main theme running through all the objections was the lack of consultation; the lack of appraisal of the views of other interested parties to the Government's proposals.
As we listen to the chatter from the Conservative Benches, this is the end of democracy. Conservative Members are showing how much they care about local government. They come from the bars and pay no attention to what is going on. Those are the people who will end local democracy.
Above all, the future of local democracy is my concern. I am sure that it is also the concern of those responsible Conservative Members who have listened to the debate.
The chief executive of Greater Manchester insists that the wrong issue is being considered here tonight. A proper consideration of change should look at the finance, the structure and functions of local government. Writing to me on behalf of the metropolitan county councils for Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire, he said:
The answer will not be found in tinkering with the structure of local government in metropolitan areas alone. It is regrettable that a full inquiry into the structure, functions and finance of local government has not been pursued prior to the intervention of this piecemeal legislation.
It might be said that they have a vested interest, being executives of county councils, but what about the champions of the Conservative party who are always running down local authorities, saying that the rates are too high? I refer to the members of the chambers of commerce who say that they will support abolition conditional upon evidence of genuine cost savings. The chambers' paper warns:
Only if evidence and guidance is forthcoming can the continued support of the business community for abolition be counted upon … The glaring absence hitherto of any detailed Government costings of either the transitional or the long-term financial implications for streamlining has prompted some chambers to call for an independent inquiry into the financial aspects of abolition.
That comes from the Government's friends. [Interruption.]
I ask the Secretary of State to listen to the deafening roar not of some of the drunks on his Benches—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that such remarks are not permissible.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Litherland: I withdraw the remark. I respect your chairmanship, Mr. Armstrong. However, there are times when it is excusable, in my view, for an hon. Member to

feel aggrieved if he tries to make a point and cannot hear himself talking because of babble from Government supporters.
I hope that the Secretary of State will think again, unless he wants to go down in history as the Minister who destroyed local democracy and brought shame to his party by moving to a centralist and authoritarian, dictatorial Government. It is not right to say that Whitehall knows better than the town hall. We have a democratic procedure. If we do not want county councils or if we do not want rate capping, we have the ballot box. That is where democracy should remain.

Mr. Straw: This has been a spirited debate, with important contributions coming from both sides of the Committee.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was right to say that, although supporters of the amendment might lose the vote, the argument was being won. There is no doubt about that, and it has been reflected not only in the quality of the speeches supporting the amendments but also in the results of the local elections last week in every area apart from Greater London and in the results of public opinion polls in Greater London. Given the right hon. Gentleman's record of opposition to his Government, we all understand and treat with charity his need for the occasional ritual flaying of the Opposition, but the proof of the effectiveness of our opposition to the Bill is shown clearly in the results of last week's local elections and will be demonstrated even more in future local elections up and down the country.
The amendments under discussion fall into four groups. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 propose that there should be inquiries, one established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and the other established under section 49 of the Local Government Act 1972. Amendment No. 4 proposes that there should be an Audit Commission inquiry into the costings of the Government's proposals. Amendment No. 72 proposes that there should be no abolition of elections until a Royal Commission has reported. Amendments Nos. 6, 9 and 10 and new clause 2 propose various time limits and conditions on the operation of the Bill.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say now that, subject to agreement, we intend to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 2 but that we seek a vote on amendment No. 3, which proposes that an inquiry should be established under the aegis of the Local Government Act 1972, which was approved and pushed through by a Conservative Administration. Section 49 of that Act provided the power of review between 10 or 15 years later. We shall also vote on amendment No. 72, which proposes that the elections should not be cancelled until the Royal Commission has reported.
We have listened to several speeches by the Secretary of State during the past six months seeking to defend his proposals to emasculate local democracy and to take upon himself the powers of local councils. However, although I might be an aficionado of his speeches I have rarely heard such an unconvincing defence of a case as that which he offered to the Committee this afternoon. It was least convincing of all when he told the Committee that what he was doing was consistent with precedent. It is strange that the Secretary of State would bother about precedent, because this is supposed to be a radical Thatcherite Government, who have given up the past and are


enbarking upon an entirely new course that is inconsistent with the traditions of the Conservative party. The newborn Thatcherites make a virtue of the fact that there is no precedent in British history for this action.
However, I suppose that we must understand the political schizophrenia of the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said in a wicked Daily Telegraph article just before Christmas, whatever the destination of the train, the Secretary of State always has a ticket on it. Ten years ago his wagon was hitched to the engine of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Then he was going in one direction, but now he is going in another.
The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the Committee or himself by saying that there is a precedent for his proposals. If he believes that there is, why have no previous Conservative Administrations introduced such paving Bills? There is a complete contrast between the Secretary of State's proposals and the proposals of previous Conservative Administrations. In the previous reorganisations, the proposals to deal with the retiring councils were contained in the substantive legislation, and the elections to those authorities took place even while that substantive legislation was going through. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will confirm that in 1972, there were elections to the old authorities at the same time as his Local Government Bill was going through the House. Elections were not abandoned until the end of 1972, and those people elected until the end of 1972 continued in office until the successor authorities took over in 1974.
There is no precedent either for a paving Bill or for abolishing elections before both Houses of Parliament have approved the substantive change, not just on Second Reading, but throughout all our procedures, and it has received Royal Assent. I hope that we shall hear no more from the Secretary of State about following precedent. If he were in the least concerned about this argument, he would try to gain merit from the fact that he is trying to do something new. He should have the courage to stand before the Committee and defend what he is doing.
We know why the Secretary of State is doing this. It is not because it is administratively convenient to abolish elections before successor councils are in place; indeed, it is an administrative nightmare to do it in this way. He is doing it this way because he is frightened of the results of the elections. He has virtually admitted that. There is no other reason.
10.30 pm
Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that every previous major change in local government has been preceded by a major inquiry. It is important that the Committee take that on board. We are all aware that in local government, indeed in the whole machinery of government, ideas take a long time to come to fruition. In my judgment, that is important, because it is self-evident that the machinery of government has a great impact upon people. It is of crucial importance that the decisions made by the House should command the widest possible support, and be likely to prove the most durable.
It is perfectly conceivable that in 1957 the Conservative party instead of deciding to establish a Royal Commission, could have chosen to follow the course that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and a committee of Conservative councillors in London had decided was

best, to have seven separate unitary authorities within what is now roughly speaking the Greater London council area. The Conservative party had the majority to do that, and at that stage it could probably have got it through, because the idea of a Greater London council at that stage was seen as a Morrisonian Labour concept, and not as a Conservative concept. But it is to the credit of the then Prime Minister, the then Mr. Harold Macmillan, that he decided not just to accept what one part of the Conservative party was at that stage saying, but to recognise instead that the future of London government had much wider repercussions, and ought to be the subject of a Royal Commission, and subject to a Royal Commission it was.
The same was true with my own party in the mid 1960s. We had our ideas about how we could reorganise local government, and we could have said, "Fine, we will go ahead with them, never mind the Opposition." But the then Prime Minister, the then Mr. Harold Wilson, proposed, and correctly so, that there should be another Royal Commission to consider the future of local government outside Greater London.
It is the case that one can never secure a total consensus upon a Royal Commission report in an area as potentially controversial as local government, but the careful and deliberate progress of issues through a Royal Commission secures widespread agreement about the need for change. Whatever arguments may have followed the Herbert commission in 1960, or the Redcliffe-Maud commission in 1969, nobody disputed that by that stage change there had to be.
The first charge against the Government is that they have not produced the case for change in the way in which they have put it forward. We have quoted the speech of the Secretary of State to the last Conservative party conference. I have been listening to the words of the Secretary of State. Where is the case for change, in the way in which he puts it forward? All that he can point to—and it is a matter to which I shall come later—is the alleged cost savings, but those are highly questionable, and by themselves do not add up to a case for change. He has failed in any way to develop a consensus, even within his own party, about the case for change.
I accept that, in this area, one cannot please all the people all the time. The proposals for change in local government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup were controversial, as were those of the present Secretary of State for Education, when he piloted through the London Government Act 1963. It is fair to say of the proposals of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that, in regard to the metropolitan areas, they followed pretty faithfully the proposals of the Redcliffe Maud commission established by the previous Labour Government, because the Redcliffe-Maud commission proposed that there should be two-tier government in the metropolitan areas. The Labour Government in a White Paper in 1969 accepted that, as did the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. So there was a consensus about that, albeit that there were, of course, arguments about some of the details, and particularly about the future of county boroughs in the non-metropolitan areas such as Nottingham, Plymouth, Leicester and, dare I say it, Blackburn.
But the situation now is quite different, and the Secretary of State does not have any consensus for the change that he proposes. Nowhere is that better illustrated


than in what he seeks to say about the cost savings that will follow if the proposals go through. The only case that he has made for the change is that millions of pounds will be saved. But again, it illustrates the bankruptcy of the Secretary of State's case that it has taken him a full 11 months just to provide us with the barest details with which to substantiate his case that millions of pounds could be saved.
I remind Conservative Members that the halcyon days of the last general election will never be repeated. Incidentally, we all welcome the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) to the Chamber, and look forward to her maiden speech. However, she is proof that those halcyon days are unlikely to be repeated for a very long time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): What was the hon. Gentleman's majority?

Mr. Straw: My majority was larger than the hon. Lady's, and my seat was classified as marginal while her seat was classified as a safe one.
During the last general election, the Conservative party claimed that there would be a saving of £120 million, and 9,000 jobs if the proposals went through. It is fair to say to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that that was not just a calculation done on the back of an envelope. He is a man who respects the Whips' Office, and later the Whips' Office allowed a statement from the Secretary of State to be placed in its hallowed portals, saying:
A rough estimate is that there is scope for saving at least £.120 million a year, including 9,000 jobs, from abolishing the MCCs and the GLC.
That was printed by the Government and is part of the Government's own political propaganda machine. We asked the Secretary of State to provide details of that £120 million. How much would come from the metropolitan counties and the GLC? How did he arrive at the figure of 9,000 for the number of jobs saved?
The Secretary of State wisely referred those questions to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). However, all the Parliamentary Under-Secretary could do was to repeat the question, and say that the figure was based on the loss of 9,000 jobs. When I pressed him again, he said:
I have nothing to add to the answer to the question from the hon. Member on 31 January . . . and the answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 20 December".—[Official Report, 3 February 1984, Vol. 53, c. 416.]
It is a sign of this policy's very bad parentage that, having thought up a policy and a number, the Secretary of State should have been trying to justify it ever since. If there are savings to be made by abolishing the metropolitan counties and the GLC, let them be referred to a fully independent inquiry. The metropolitan counties made it clear early on that they were willing to co-operate in such an inquiry. I hope that the Secretary of State will not slam the door, and that he will hold an inquiry instead of pushing the Bill through.
An inquiry must examine, among other things, whether the Secretary of State's claim that there will be no reduction in services is true. We judge that in order to secure such savings, there are bound to be major reductions in services, and big increases in fares, for

example, as well as a much poorer service overall in all the metropolitan areas and within the area of the GLC. The Secretary of State knows full well that the majority of speeches made by Labour Members, by those on the alliance Benches and by those on his own side, have been against the proposals. He lost the argument on Second Reading on 11 April.
The Secretary of State has lost the argument in the country, but it is still not too late for him to save the reputation of his party — that is what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is worried about—for fair dealing, for being concerned about town hall rather than Whitehall, and about the continuation of real democracy. He can secure all those ends by accepting our amendments.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We have had a wide-ranging debate and rehearsed many of the issues which divide the House on the substance of this Bill and on the issues which will arise in the main abolition Bill when that is brought before the House in the next Session.
One charge levelled at the Government must be firmly nailed, although I would not expect the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to accept my argument. He, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that the Government's motivation in embarking on abolishing the GLC and metropolitan county councils was nothing more than political spite. That is not true. The majority of these authorities have been controlled by Conservatives in the past and, no doubt if they remained, they would be controlled by Conservatives again.
The reason for making the change and for moving towards unitary local government in the big cities, which is spelled out in chapter 1 of "Streamlining the Cities" is primarily to get a better structure for the delivery of services to the people in those areas and to achieve a simpler structure of local government which will produce savings for the citizens in those areas.
The hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) emphasised that it has not yet been possible to give a detailed assessment to the House of precisely what the savings will be. Earlier, I made a full statement about where we stand and undertook that, as and when further information becomes available under the powers contained in the Bill, we shall give figures to the House. We shall give the House our up-to-date estimates and ensure that it has a full statement before we do take the Second Reading of the main abolition Bill.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend is helpful when he says that figures will be published as soon as they become available. If those figures do not support his case, what will he then do?

Mr. Jenkin: That is a hypothetical question. As I said earlier, I am convinced that the policy will produce savings. As the information becomes available from the successor authorities, we shall begin to see that become more apparent.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West attacked the report from the four London treasurers. One can certainly argue that some of the figures in that report are based upon assumptions about rate support grant distributions which perhaps it is too early to confirm, but


that study undoubtedly showed that there would be substantial administrative savings of about £35 million. That is consistent with what I said earlier. There must be savings from the elimination of the GLC bureaucracy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State told us earlier that there was evidence to support the proposition that there would be savings. Can he tell the Committee whether the only evidence upon which he bases his case is the report to which he has just referred? If not, where is the rest of it?

Mr. Jenkin: As I said earlier, it is the Price Waterhouse report which was published recently and the analysis of that which has been made in my Department. That is considered to be, if anything, a cautious and conservative estimate of the savings. Of course, that applied only to metropolitan county councils and not to London. There is now evidence corning from a variety of sources which points in the same direction. The broad range of estimates which my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Employment gave before the 1979 election may provide the order of magnitude. That is what is coming.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I must get on; I think that the Committee is anxious to reach a conclusion on these amendments. I understand that the Committee is anxious for more definite information, and I undertake to give it when it becomes available.

Mr. Straw: May I bring the Secretary of State back to the question of £120 million? He made the claim 11 months ago that £120 million would be saved. What was the evidence then for that claim?

Mr. Jenkin: I made it clear that that was an internal estimate that had been made by officials of the Department on the best information they had available. [Interruption.] It was not in the manifesto. The point is that we always recognised that the information that would be available from the authorities themselves would form the basis of a much firmer estimate.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said about the case being not solely about costs and savings. The passage that was quoted earlier in the debate from something that I had said previously made it clear that we are not basing our case solely on costs and savings. It is an important part of the argument. We are certainly against the view put by the hon. Member for Leyton that somehow we want to support regional government. In making his case for the retention of the GLC, he argued that this was a form of regional government. We have never gone in for regional government in England, and we do not want to start down that road now. If local government is about anything, it is about the provision of services in the area. It is not about regional government. Some of the arguments we have heard for the retention of the upper-tier councils seem to smack more of regional government than of the provision of services to the local population.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) made a forceful speech in which he made it clear that he is in favour of the policy of abolition but that he

intensely dislikes the interim arrangements. We shall have an opportunity to argue that more fully when we come to amendment No. 14 to clause 2.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) made a characteristically forceful speech, in which he pointed out that he had opposed the creation of the metropolitan county councils in 1972 because he felt that the big cities should have retained the powers that they had. Therefore, I find. his opposition to the measure puzzling. What we are seeking to do is to return to the big cities the powers that were taken from them. The proposals that we have put before the Committee will go a long way to restore the powers which those big cities had. I share his ambitions that local government in the big cities should become strong and effective. Serious problems affect the major cities, which is why we are spending so much more on urban policy now than when we took power in 1979. It is partly because the big cities do not have the resources to be able to do what is necessary that our urban policy has been necessary. The paving Bill is a step on that road.

Mr. Wareing: Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling us that the fire and police services on Merseyside will go to the Liverpool city council and the four district councils as a result of the Bill that he intends to introduce next Session?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may have been in the Chamber when I drew attention to a written answer on 4 May, which made it clear that the Government are prepared to include in the Bill—this is a change from the White Paper—a provision that it will be open to the district councils to argue at a later stage that the services should be devolved to them. It will begin as we propose in the White Paper, but there will be an opportunity to opt out of the joint services if a case can be made. That has been welcomed by the larger cities. The Bill is a step along that road, and I hope that it will have the support of those who wish to see local government returned to the big cities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made clear yet again his misgivings not only about the Bill but about the abolition proposals generally. I say to him in all kindness that I think that he has a view of the value of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils that is not widely shared by those who look objectively at what they do and at what they cost. Although he discounts the pressures from lower-tier metropolitan counties for single-tier government, as I said on Second Reading, that pressure has been sustained and well argued and crosses party lines. That was the foundation of the arguments we set out in chapter 1 of "Streamlining the Cities".
My right hon. Friend complained about the lack of information. With great respect to him, I gave a great deal of information during my speech on Second Reading, I gave a long written answer to a parliamentary question on 4 May and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made an important statement about the future of ILEA. All that shows that the Government have made a reality of consultation, and it is against that background that we must look at the plea for an inquiry. I find it a little hard that if we stick to our view we are accused of rigidity, and if we listen to consultations and are willing to make changes in response to the views put to us we are accused of creating uncertainty and a dog's breakfast.
I should much prefer to feel that we have listened to and taken account of the many important views that have been put to us and that we have been prepared to modify our plans accordingly. It is not a new policy that has suddenly sprung from nowhere; it has been long argued by many people. We had long consultations. Against that background we must look at the case for yet a further inquiry.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), in rehearsing earlier inquiries and local government reforms, used the rather remarkable phrase that they had provided long periods of discussion without much action. That has been the pattern in the past. If the Government are to break that pattern, they cannot have only long periods of discussion without much action. Those who have been pressing for this reform are looking for action.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned the Herbert report. A huge amount has changed since that report made its recommendation about the GLC. The GLC has lost a large number of the powers that were the basis of the report's recommendations. He also mentioned the Redcliffe-Maud report. Surely he recognises that the heart of that report was the proposal for unitary single-tier local government. That heart was rejected.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman has again misled himself. Redcliffe-Maud did not propose unitary authorities in the metropolitan areas. It proposed — I have the exact text of the proposals with me—that there should be two-tier local government in the metropolitan areas. That was accepted by the Labour Government and then by the Conservative Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Mr. Jenkin: It recommended unitary local government for the whole of the rest of the country. [Interruption.] The Labour party wanted unitary local government throughout the country and it put that in its manifesto.
I do not believe that a case has been made out for yet a further inquiry. We have conducted a wide consultation, have taken full account of the large numbers of representations that have been made to us and have announced a series of changes in the proposals, and hon. Members now have many of those details in answers that have been given. I must, therefore, resist the blandishments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to go in for yet a further inquiry. That could only lead, despite what he said, to further delay at a time when people are anxious that, if we are to do this, we should press ahead and bring the changes about according to the timetable that we have proposed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup criticised the proposed arrangements for suspending the elections. I must tell him, with respect, that he was less than fair to the Government. He accused me of making what he called an artificial distinction between the cancellation of elections and what happens afterwards. There is a distinction; there is a precedent that when local government reorganisation is under way and when councils are due to come to an end, there comes a point when elections to those councils are suspended.
What is new on this occasion — I have made no bones about this—is that, unlike previous occasions, we

now have in existence new authorities which will inherit the services. The question that we shall need to argue when we come to the relevant amendment on clause 2 is whether, having cancelled the elections, we allow the existing councils to run on, or whether we allow the nominated councillors from the borough and district councils to run the councils in the interim year. That is a separate and real argument and we shall come to it in due course.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman does not know the meaning of his own proposals.

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot advise the Committee to accept this series of amendments, and I hope that they will be rejected.

Dr. Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert
`and no such order shall be made before the Secretary of State has, pursuant to section 49 of the principal Act, directed the English Commission to review the areas of Greater London and the metropolitan counties and has laid before each House of Parliament an order to give effect, with or without modification, to proposals formulated and submitted to him by the Commission under sections 47 or 48 of the principal Act'. — [Dr. Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 319.

Division No. 283]
[11 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cowans, Harry


Ashdown, Paddy
Craigen, J. M.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunningham, Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnett, Guy
Dixon, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dormand, Jack


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Dubs, Alfred


Bell, Stuart
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, William
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Anthony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foster, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Godman, Dr Norman


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, John


Clarke, Thomas
Gourlay, Harry


Clay, Robert
Ground, Patrick


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Haynes, Frank


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hicks, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)






Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Penhaligon, David


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Douglas
Prescott, John


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redmond, M.


John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Robertson, George


Knox, David
Rogers, Allan


Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McKelvey, William
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McTaggart, Robert
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Gavin


Martin, Michael
Straw, Jack


Maxton, John
Tapsell, Peter


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tinn, James


Michie, William
Torney, Tom


Mikardo, Ian
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miscampbell, Norman
Wainwright, R.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Walters, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wareing, Robert


Nellist, David
Weetch, Ken


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon A.


O'Brien, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Park, George



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. James Hamilton and


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.




NOSE


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Braine, Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Tom
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Brinton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Browne, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruinvels, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beggs, Roy
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Bellingham, Henry
Buck, Sir Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Budgen, Nick


Berry, Sir Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond


Best, Keith
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butcher, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butler, Hon Adam


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Butterfill, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Body, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carttiss, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Cash, William





Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hooson, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Robert
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
Kilfedder, James A.


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Roger (B'ham N field)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Farr, John
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lamont, Norman


Fletcher, Alexander
Lang, Ian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawler, Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Ivan


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fox, Marcus
Lightbown, David


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Galley, Roy
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lyell, Nicholas


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
McCrea, Rev William


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Neil


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacGregor, John


Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gow, Ian
Maclean, David John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Madel, David


Greenway, Harry
Maginnis, Ken


Gregory, Conal
Major, John


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malone, Gerald


Grist, Ian
Maples, John


Grylls, Michael
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Marlow, Antony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Maude, Hon Francis


Hannam, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Harris, David
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Harvey, Robert
Mellor, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Merchant, Piers


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mills, 'Iain (Meriden)


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayes, J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Heddle, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Henderson, Barry
Moore, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hickmet, Richard
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hind, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hirst, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Needham, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Nelson, Anthony






Neubert, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Newton, Tony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Nicholls, Patrick
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Normanton, Tom
Rost, Peter


Norris, Steven
Rowe, Andrew


Onslow, Cranley
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Oppenheim, Philip
Ryder, Richard


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Ottaway, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Sayeed, Jonathan


Parris, Matthew
Scott, Nicholas


Patten, John (Oxford)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Pawsey, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Porter, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Silvester, Fred


Powell, William (Corby)
Sims, Roger


Powley, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Price, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Raffan, Keith
Speller, Tony


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Spencer, Derek


Renton, Tim
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Rhodes James, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Squire, Robin


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Roberts, Wyn (Convey)
Stanley, John





Stern, Michael
Waddington, David


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Walden, George


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Stokes, John
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Watts, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Woodcock, Michael


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Trippier, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Carol Mather and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
'but no such order shall be made until a Royal Commission to inquire into the re-organisation of local government in Greater London and in the areas of the metropolitan counties has issued a report on that matter.'—[Dr. Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 317.

Division No. 284]
[11.14 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Fisher, Mark


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Forrester, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foulkes, George


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
George, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman


Barnett, Guy
Golding, John


Barron, Kevin
Gourlay, Harry


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ground, Patrick


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bell, Stuart
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Benn, Tony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Haynes, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Blair, Anthony
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Clarke, Thomas
Kirkwood, Archibald


Clay, Robert
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Conlan, Bernard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cowans, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
McNamara, Kevin


Cunningham, Dr John
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Michie, William


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry
Nellist, David


Faulds, Andrew
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
O'Neill, Martin





Park, George
Skinner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Patchett, Terry
Snape, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Penhaligon, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pike, Peter
Stott, Roger


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Randall, Stuart
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Redmond, M.
Tinn, James


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Torney, Tom


Richardson, Ms Jo
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wainwright, R.


Robertson, George
Wallace, James


Rogers, Allan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, J. W.
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Weetch, Ken


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. James Hamilton arid


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Silkin, Rt Hon J.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chope, Christopher


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcfiffe)


Arnold, Tom
Clegg, Sir Walter


Ashby, David
Cockeram, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Coombs, Simon


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cope, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Corrie, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cranborne, Viscount


Beggs, Roy
Crouch, David


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Dicks, Terry


Berry, Sir Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Robert


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eggar, Tim


Body, Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bottomley, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Farr, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Favell, Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher, Alexander


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brinton, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Browne, John
Fox, Marcus


Bruinvels, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Freeman, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gale, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Galley, Roy


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butler, Hon Adam
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal






Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maples, John


Grist, Ian
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Marlow, Antony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Maude, Hon Francis


Hannam, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Harris, David
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mellor, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Merchant, Piers


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayes, J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Heddle, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Henderson, Barry
Moore, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hickmet, Richard
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hind, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hirst, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Needham, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Nelson, Anthony


Holt, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hooson, Tom
Newton, Tony


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howard, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Norris, Steven


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Onslow, Cranley


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Philip


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ottaway, Richard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Parris, Matthew


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Irving, Charles
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Porter, Barry


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powley, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Proctor, K. Harvey


Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Kilfedder, James A.
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Renton, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Norman
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrea, Rev William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maginnis, Ken
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Major, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony





Spencer, Derek
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Viggers, Peter


Squire, Robin
Waddington, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanley, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Waller, Gary


Stokes, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Warren, Kenneth


Sumberg, David
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Whitfield, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Woodcock, Michael


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Trippier, David
Mr. Carol Mather and


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'and supplementary' and insert `supplementary and consequential'.
No. 8, in page 2, line 2, leave out from `as' to `including' in line 3 and insert
`are necessary for the purposes of the Order'.

Mr. Carlile: Amendment No. 51 deals with clause 1(3) which gives quite staggering powers to the Secretary of State to amend important legislation at will. We are concerned with the fundamental constitutional rights of the British public in large conurbations—the right of the public to vote, to be represented, and to have regular and democratic elections of accountable representatives.
In any state for which British constitutional lawyers have written constitutions in recent years the sort of rights which are contained in the Local Government Act 1972 and in the Representation of the People Act 1983 have been enshrined. No constitutional lawyer worth his salt would ever countenance putting this type of provision into the constitution of a new democracy which he was planning. It is an outrage and an insult to the House and an insult to the British public that the Government are seeking to include this type of sweeping power in the Bill and thus to do away with fundamental constitutional rights.
The Local Government Act 1972, which clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to amend at will, contains no fewer than 274 sections and 30 schedules. He can meddle about with those and tinker with his electoral spanner, or, perhaps more appositely, he can put his spanner in the electoral works. The Representation of the People Act contains 207 sections and 9 schedules. Therefore, we are giving the Secretary of State the power to play about in the way that he thinks fit with 481 statutory


sections and 39 schedules. It is quite wrong to give the Secretary of State power, by order, to amend any of those sections and schedules as he chooses. It is worth noting that that power was never given in the Local Government Act or in the Representation of the People Act and that an attempt is being made to slip them into a Bill purporting to deal with interim provisions.
11.30 pm
It is right to ask how the Minister would exercise these powers to amend. For example, would he introduce proportional representation, which is so dear to the hearts of my right hon. and hon. Friends? Somehow I doubt it. Would he go to the other extreme and follow the Polish lead by restricting the number of candidates in local elections to two, to be approved by him or by some local official? In fairness to the. Minister, I doubt that, too.
But we should not have to speculate about how he would exercise these powers affecting constitutional rights. We should be able to see in draft statutory form how he anticipates acting. We should be able to see now how the Secretary of State may wish to exercise these immense constitutional powers never given before in modern times. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show us any respectable precedent in any respectable democracy in modern times in which such powers have been given. These powers give the Secretary of State the authority of a Caesar but with the ability to knife the constitution with the thrust of a Brutus.
The Government have dealt with these statutory provisions in the wrong way. They have taken the wrong starting point. The substantive legislation should have come first. There has been indecent haste to reject the precedents—the Local Government Acts of 1963 and 1972—in both of which the electoral provisions appear in the primary legislation. In modern times, the House has never been asked to deal in this way with electoral and constitutional matters of this import.
The House is used where necessary to dealing with electoral problems late in the day. I cite as an example the very late decision reached about the arrangements for European elections — a wrong decision in the event. Liberal Members feel outraged that the Government have taken such high-handed actions, the repercussions of which will be felt by millions of people who will live in uncertainty about future electoral arrangements and will, I am sure, look with contempt upon a Government and a Secretary of State who have been prepared to act in such a high-handed fashion.

Dr. David Clark: On Second Reading and again in Committee, one theme running through the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions has been that of worry about our democratic ideals. Many Opposition Members feel that the Bill is one of a long line of anti-democratic measures introduced by the Government.
As we have no written constitution, we depend for our freedom on Acts of Parliament and other sources. It is only right and proper, as the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, that we should pay special attention to a Bill that might affect the constitutional or electoral rights of the people. It is ironic that the Government, who wax so eloquently about freedom, especially freedom in Poland and East Germany, are not prepared to pay the same attention to Britain. One source of our freedom are the

Representation of the People Acts, which have been fundamental in guaranteeing our voting system and electoral rights.
Clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power if he thinks it "necessary or expedient" to modify any part of the Local Government Act 1972 or the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Opposition maintain that that:,s too draconian a power to give to any man or woman. We realise that the Secretary of State would have to bring an order before the House, but with this Government it is plain that, no matter what the arguments are, that would be a mere formality. Earlier today someone said that we now have an elective dictatorship.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to limit the power of the Secretary of State to modifications necessary to the elections to the seven authorities that we are discussing. We believe that there should be no doubts about the clause, so our amendments seek to make any changes to the Local Government Act or the Representation of the People Act intra vires if they are necessary for the purposes of any order under the Bill. In amendment No. 7 the word "and" is crucial, because for anything to be intra vires all three points in the amendments would have to be met—it would have to be transitional, supplementary and consequential—and we would thus provide an additional safeguard and an essential limitation on the powers of the Secretary of State.
I hope that the Minister can accommodate our wishes in this respect, because he must recognise, from the strength of feeling on his side, that the Government do not have a good reputation in defending democratic ideals. ft would be a great reassurance to many people if they would concede these points.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As I voted against Second Reading of the Bill and for the previous amendment, I should briefly explain the reasons that led me to do so.
This amendment raises a point of principle that goes to the heart of my argument. My basic objection to the Bill is not that it paves the way for the abolition of the GLC—I should be happy to see it abolished—but that it subverts the Government's greatest achievement, which is the restoration of the individual's sense of responsibility for his actions and choices. If that restoration of a sense of responsibility is to be long-lasting, it must be exercised continually, not sporadically. It is not enough for the elector to elect a Conservative Government with a massive majority and a mandate, and then sit back for five years and leave it to the Government to keep down prices, to cause industry to be competitive, and to stop local authorities being extravagant.
If the Government want the idea of individual responsibility to apply also in local government — as they must—they should arrange matters so that voters in local government elections are brought up sharply against the consequences of their votes. They should be made to realise that, if they want nursery classes, swimming pools and free public transport, they will all have to pay higher rates. When they choose their councillors, they will have to balance what amenities they want against what they are prepared to pay for. This will happen only if there is a proper reform of the rating system.
Almost any of the reforms that were considered and rejected would have done something towards improving the sense of individual responsibility. Instead of tackling


this fundamental defect, the Government are doing the opposite of what is needed. They are doing everything possible to weaken the sense of individual responsibility, and to encourage people to think that, having voted in a Conservative Government, they can sit back and leave it to them.
The Government have introduced rate capping so that the Government, not the electors, will clobber the more extravagant councils. The Government will abolish the most extravagant councils, and will stifle the democratic process in the most extravagant councils, thus preventing the electors of London and of the other metropolitan boroughs from using their votes.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment. He must relate what he is saying to the amendment.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I come to the amendment now.
In preventing the electors from using their votes, the Secretary of State is taking to himself in the clause powers to prevent their doing many other things. He is using these powers to prevent their expressing a verdict on spendthrift councils. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the polls show a greatly weakened sense of individual responsibility among the London voters.
I am not against the abolition of the Greater London council, nor, for that matter, the abolition of any of the other tiers of local government in England or Wales. I want to be sure that such of their functions as are necessary to be continued are effectively exercised, and subject to democratic control. That does not yet appear to be the case in London.
I am totally opposed to this measure. Looking through the list of amendments selected, and particularly the amendment before the Committee that seems to raise in an acute form the issue of principle here involved, I can envisage no occasion when I shall feel able to support the Government in the Lobby during the proceedings on the Bill, and few occasions on which I shall refrain from voting against them.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: It would be wrong of me to comment on the explication de vote of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). I shall therefore confine my comments to one or two brief remarks about the amendments before the Committee. They can be brief, because there is little to add to the cogent arguments and clear explanations given by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I am worried, as they are, about the fact that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque on which he can write virtually any powers for himself that he chooses to write. I cannot recall—if I am wrong, I ask some more experienced right hon. or hon. Member to correct me—any other statutory provision made during the time that I have been a Member of Parliament that gives such wide, unlimited and undefined powers to a Minister.
I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomery will forgive me for saying that I thought that he understated the case. He described the powers in subsection (3) as the powers of a Caesar. For a great deal of the time of the Roman empire, the Caesars did not have powers as wide as are contained in subsection (3), although they did for

parts of the time. In the history of the Roman empire, the relative powers of the executive and of the legislature varied a good deal from time to time, and, for long periods, no Caesar could get anywhere near the powers contained in subsection (3).
Those powers are greater than are within the grasp of the politburo of the central committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. They are greater than the powers within the grasp of General Pinochet of Chile. They are very wide indeed. As has been pointed out, as long as the Secretary of State, all by his little self, thinks that something is necessary or expedient, that is good enough. No other criterion is applied to decide whether a given provision in an order made under this clause is necessary and desirable, or unnecessary and injurious. No other test is applied. The only test is the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State. He makes words mean what he chooses them to mean.
We are back in that sort of wonderland with this clause. It is a gross abuse of democratic principle and practice. It is also a gross abuse of the British parliamentary tradition. I find it hard to understand how any hon. Member, who by definition thinks a great deal of this House — otherwise he would not have sought to come here—can conceivably vote for something that trenches on the rights, privileges and powers of the House as this subsection does. We should get rid of it, but if we cannot do that, the fallback position set out in the other two amendments—of which the second is much better than the first—would at least provide us with some limitation, albeit not very strong, on the arbitrary and capricious powers that the Secretary of State is giving himself. I hope that the House concurs with that view, and will vote accordingly.

Mr. Spearing: At the end of the previous debate I was out of order in a disorderly manner. However, I make no apology for that, because in a press release after the Second Reading debate, I said that this Bill had a whiff of totalitarianism about it. I was shocked and surprised to hear the Secretary of State make a statement that was patently untrue, when he said that the local authorities, of the GLC, were handing back powers to existing authorities. We all know that a lot of quangos are to take over powers that have been held by an elected authority in London for 100 years. If a Secretary of State, in a democratically elected Parliament, does not know that, every Conservative Member had better watch out. There is more than a whiff of totalitarianism around in this Bill.
The Minister will no doubt say that that point relates to subsection (2), because that subsection, which immediately precedes the subsection that is the subject of this debate, relates to the repeal of large parts of this Bill and possibly their revival. As the Bill states:
any enactment repealed by this Act shall revive on the coming into force of the order.
That refers not only to the Bill, but to other Acts that have been repealed. That is an extraordinary provision. The subsection states that legislation can be repealed by an Order in Council — not by another Bill — and that a revival of repealed Acts can also be brought about by means of an Order in Council.
I accept that on some occasions — the European Communities Act has been mentioned—such a device is by general consent accepted as necessary. I believe that both subsections (2) and (3) are unnecessary. Subsection


(2) may be necessary from the Government's point of view to enable them to withdraw the Bill if they do not get a Second Reading for the projected legislation. That will be their fault for putting this Bill before the House in advance of the other legislation. Subsection (2) is unnecessary, as is the Bill.
Subsection (3) which the amendment would delete, builds upon subsection (2), which is bad enough because it provides that the Bill can be repealed or revived by order. Subsection (3), with which it must be read, goes much further. It uses the words:
An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972".
That is included, not just as an afterthought, but as a specific power in case of doubt. It means that all sorts of other provisions in all sorts of other Acts, not just the Local Government Act 1972, can be included at that time by an order under the clause.
Unless the Minister can tell us to the contrary, the powers taken in the two subsections state that if there is need for revival or repeal, at that point the Minister, by order, can include any provision of any sort. That power is totally unnecessary. Why not let it be confined to the purposes of the Bill? Why must it include any other provision? Even if I accepted subsection (2) for the sake of argument—which I do not—why is not subsection (3) tightly drawn to apply to statutes repealed or revived? Why must it go beyond that?

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State said that the reason for the abolition of the GLC had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's personal feelings towards its leader. He said that he did not think that I would believe him. That is the only time in this debate that he has been correct. I do not believe him. Nothing will convince me.
I realise that we cannot take any assurances from the Minister even if he says that our worst fears are unfounded. This part of the Bill gives the Secretary of State unbridled powers to do whatsoever he wishes. Frankly, it is one further example of the arrogance of power on the Government Benches. It was not a member of the Labour party who referred to the rate-capping legislation as being an example of an elective dictatorship. Those words are likely to continue in political currency for a long time because that is precisely what we are faced with. Here again is a classic example of the wherewithal whereby the elective dictatorship can be exercised.
As I understand it, under this part of the Bill the Secretary of State can do anything he wishes. I am sure that he would wish to restrict the ability of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to spend money on advertising their cause. Moneys that are spent by the GLC on grants are paid under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which is specifically mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, it follows that when this Bill goes through, the Government will restrict the ability of authorities like the GLC to spend any money on advertising on what they consider to be party political matters — something of great debate — or on grants to organisations and groups of which they do not approve.
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State whether my fears are unfounded or unjustified. I shall be interested to hear what he thinks about that. If he were to say to the Committee that he can give a categorical assurance that there will be no

interference with section 137 expenditure, I would be more content, but I must suspect that he cannot give that assurance.
In an earlier debate there was reference to the amount of money that the GLC is spending on advertising. Lest any Conservative Members might have base thoughts going through their minds, the sweat shirt that I am wearing was paid for by myself; my hon. Friends have paid for similar garments that they are wearing. These sweat shirts are available at a nominal price to Conservative Members if they are prepared to wear them in the Chamber. I hope therefore, that no one will accuse us of trying to put forward party political propaganda in the Chamber.
The GLC will continue to use its powers under the 1.972 Act to explain to Londoners precisely what the Government are doing. It is necessary to do this because we are not getting the facts from the Government. They are deliberately suppressing information that would be valuable to hon. Members on both sides of the Corrunittee. We know about the submissions in regard to Cmnd. 9063. We have not been given the opportunity to look at information which Ministers have had, so there has always been a readiness to restrict access to information.
A great campaign has been waged by Tory newspapers —The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—to put strong arguments against the continuation of the GLC It has been necessary for bodies like the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to explain the case to their electorate. They have done it so successfully that there is massive opposition in London to the Government's proposals. Much of that opposition has come about because of the success of the GLC's campaign. Conservative Members might consider that that is party political, but it is not. All that expenditure has been cleared through the GLC's legal department and I dare any Conservative Member to say that any of it has been illegal, because it has not been illegal, as I suspect they know.
In this part of the Bill power will be vested in the Secretary of State to stop all that if he so wishes. I am sure that the Secretary of State, who is desperately anxious to cloak his miserable argument with respectability, would be prepared to descend even further into the gutter to try to prevent hon. Members and Londoners from having free access to information. The Government do not have a case. The have failed palpably to produce any valid argument for their proposals. Having lost the arguments in the Chamber and outside, and using this subsection of the Bill, the Government will attempt to restrict the ability of the GLC and other bodies to continue to tell the truth. As soon as the Government stop telling lies about the GLC, the GLC will stop telling the truth about the Government.

12 midnight

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry that I did not rise to my feet a little more quickly to achieve the balance that you like, Mr. Armstrong. I was so mesmerised by the sweat shirt of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that I failed to get into the fray quickly enough.
When I read the clause and the amendments on the Notice Paper, I thought it might be proper for the Committee to press the Government to agree to the amendments. The clause reads in a way that suggests that


the Secretary of State can do anything that he wishes. I understand why the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) used the analogy of Caesar.
With respect to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I can only conclude that he is not experienced in reading legislation. If we study the Bill, it is clear that what the Secretary of State is entitled to do under subsection (3) is precisely limited by three things. First, it is limited by the long title of the Bill, which makes it crystal clear that he can operate only within the limited framework that we are discussing. Secondly, it is limited because, as the hon. Gentleman will note if he turns to the first page of the Bill, clause 1 is described as dealing with the
commencement, and termination, of the interim measures
and nothing else. Thirdly, it is limited by clause 1 itself, which is a safeguarding and limiting clause that prescribes what the Secretary of State can do only in some limited and precise areas. Indeed, it states what the measure cannot do unless certain provision are already agreed to. On that basis, some of the language that has been used during the past five minutes about dictatorship and the destruction of the rights of the House is palpable nonsense.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question comparable to one asked by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). In this subsection, my hon. Friend is not dealing only with the provisions of the Bill. The latter part states:
including provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972 … or the Representation of the People Act 1983.
I had some responsibility for putting the 1972 Act on the statute book. Although I do not rise to my feet to defend every aspect of it—indeed, I wish that I had not had anything to do with some aspects of it—by and large I would hesitate before authorising any Minister to dispose of any provisions that arose from that Act.
I hope that when my hon. Friend comments on the debate he will make it clear that the subsection applies to only those provisions of the 1972 Act or the 1983 Act that are pertinent to this specific, narrow exercise; that the second part of the Bill shall not come into force and that there will be a reinstatement of the elections; that it deals only with that an with those powers that could arise from the 1972 or 1983 Acts. If so, in my judgment he is home and dry.

Dr. David Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it does not matter what the Minister says tonight—it all depends on the way in which the courts interpret the wording of the Bill? We have sought legal advice and have concluded that this series of amendments—especially the addition of the words "and consequential" in the previous provision to which he referred—would firm up the provision and leave less in doubt for the interpretation of the courts, so achieving what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for.

Ms. Griffiths: I confess that when I first read the amendments I thought that they sought only to make clear the thrust of what I have been saying, and to that extent I have sympathy with them. However, if the Minister can show that my other argument is correct and that the amendments are not necessary, I shall listen to his case.

But if he fails to satisfy me on that, on the logic of the argument that I have adduced, I should have to support the amendment.

Mr. Waldegrave: I enjoyed the bit of Roman history from the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). No one in the Committee looks more like a Roman emperor than he, and I should have been happy later in the night, when things might be less friendly, to listen at greater length to his exegesis. I can put his mind at rest on one point. We are proposing not an Order in Council but an order, under the affirmative procedure, of both Houses.
The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) arrived late, after the real thunder of the debate on the previous amendment. He put in his tuppence worth of bombast, but he was rather off target. As the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar allowed us a little history, perhaps I may be permitted to recall reading how Mussolini sent three or four squadrons of biplanes to join in the battle of Britain, but they arrived on 16 September, just after we had won the battle. The hon. Member for Montgomery might have joined in somewhat earlier because the higher flown rhetoric was more in place earlier in the day.
I hope that I can console my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who, in spite of knocking us about, was genuinely seeking, as was the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), to make sure that the powers in the clause were not too wide and were circumscribed in the way that they wanted.
The amendments reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose of subsection (3). It would be wrong to delete the subsection, as amendment No. 51 would do, because that subsection would help to restore elections should abolition not go ahead. It is the means by which elections could be reintroduced to the electoral cycle. For example, if abolition failed at some point after May 1985, it would be necessary to restore elections, with those elected serving less than the normal four-year period of office; they would serve until May 1989, when normal elections to the upper tier would again be due. That is the sort of transitional arrangement envisaged by clause 1(3).
There is no question of the clause applying, to start with, outside the metropolitan areas. The transitional arrangements relate only to an order made under clause 1(2), and that clause applies only to the metropolitan areas.
Powers under subsection (3) are not unfettered. They can be used only to make such modifications or provisions as are necessary or expedient to achieve two effects, which are to repeal the Act and to restore the original situation. Neither amendment No. 7 nor amendment No. 8 is necessary because as the powers stand they are not unfettered. The key phrase is "to restore the original situation". Any amendments that are made to the two powerful, important and fundamental Acts would have to be aimed only at meeting the criteria which I have outlined.
We considered with sympathy whether we could write in the Bill words such as "consequential" to make matters absolutely clear. We were told by our legal advisers and others that that would produce a mare's nest. We were advised that such additions could lead to strict legalistic arguments in the courts on whether a particular act that needed to be taken was consequential on the repeal of the Act. It would be wrong to circumscribe the power to such


an extent that it could not effectively achieve its purpose. There would be too many opportunities for legal challenge on what is consequential and what is necessary. That would lead to delays in restoring the original situation.
I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will understand that I am trying to meet him on this issue. There is no disagreement between us on principle and I hope that he will accept that the Acts as written limit the scope of any changes to what is necessary to repeal the Act and restore the original situation. I hope that he will understand that if we try to insert additional words we shall find that we have excluded other measures that have not been properly described. I am advised that that happens quite often in the law. The courts would, of course, pay some attention to the will of the House of Commons as expressed in this place if there ever was a disagreement on this issue. The intention is properly circumscribed as written in the Act.

Dr. David Clark: I appreciate the way in which the Minister has responded to the points that the Opposition have made. I am taking at face value his assurance that he is concerned and has taken advice. Will he give the assurance that he will be prepared to reconsider the parts of the clause that have caused considerable anxiety on the Opposition Benches with the objective of introducing amendments in another place, especially if further representations that are made to him show that perhaps the original advice was not correct?

Mr. Waldegrave: We have been round this circuit before. Meetings have taken place on the parts of the Bill that we accept are fundamentally controversial. We have no desire to have unnecessary controversy. If it had been possible to make matters clearer without landing ourselves in extra potential difficulties, we would have done so. I am advised that the Act as written is safe from the worries that have been expressed.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the Minister say that in the event of a dispute the courts would take account of the will of the House of Commons as expressed in these debates? I am sure that I did not hear him correctly because he must know that the courts could not take into account anything that was said in the Chamber on legislation. I hope that he will say that I misheard him rather than accepting that he made an erroneous statement. Secondly, is he able to give an assurance to the Committee that section 137 money will not be affected by the passage of the clause? Will section 137 be inviolate?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's second point is easier to deal with than the first. Section 137 and many of the other sections are without the scope of the Bill. By drawing that red herring across the trail he tempts me to make a speech about the advertising expenditure of the GLC, a speech which I shall refrain from making.
The Government have the power to advertise on hoardings on any subject that they like. Imagine the uproar if hoardings all over the country showed the Government's partisan position, for example, on cruise missiles—or I should say bipartisan, because the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) let the cat out of the bag. There rightly would have been an uproar, which is why we did not proceed. I am not saying that the expenditure in this direction by the GLC or the metropolitan councils is illegal. Some ratepayers would

have gone to the auditors a long time ago if that were so. It is a breach of what until now had been one of the conventions that central Government were maintaining.
The intentions of Ministers can be relevant when examining the intentions of Parliament. It is unnecessary to rely on that fact, because we have been advised, after fairly exhaustive investigation, that the worries that were rightly put forward by hon. Members are met by the legislation as drafted.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hoped that the Under-Secretary of State would have responded more positively and gone further down the road of the criticisms. Late in the day, we have been joined by my hon. and, since last week, learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I congratulate him on obtaining his silk and therefore, no doubt, being regarded as a better legal expert than he was when he was a mere junior member of the Bar. Unlike Conservative Members, we are united in our views on this matter and come in and out in support of each other. The Under-Secretary of State cannot rely on Conservative Members who normally have their best arguments when opposing the proposals of the Front Bench.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the purpose of the legislation, or, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, the notes in the margins can be referred to by the courts. The courts have regularly renounced that part of that wording.

Mr. Waldegrave: As an hon. Member without legal training, let alone a silk, I was perhaps unwise to venture into such territory. I believe that the courts examine the nature, purpose and scope of the Act, but not the words said in the House.

Mr. Hughes: It is vital—this point has been made by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee—that the legislature must never allow the Executive to have powers other than those that are clearly and tightly defined and strictly necessary to our purpose. I do not accept that it is right to say that Parliament is seeking to achieve a minority vote represented by the majority of seats in the House.
If the other place agrees, subsections (2) and (3) will put on the statute book legislation to suspend the elections that should occur next May, pending other legislation that we have not yet seen. The Government will, if necessary, adapt the Local Government Act 1972 and the Representation of the People Act 1983 to permit that action. Presumably, although the Under-Secretary of State did not say this, the Government's justification is that there would be insufficient time or opportunity to consider a short piece of legislation again.
Our job as a legislature, whatever the colour of the party in Government, is to ensure that the Executive does not steal more power than it needs. We should, therefore, limit ourselves to leaving the provisions of subsection (2) in the Bill. That subsection states:
The Secretary of State may by order repeal Parts II to IV of this Act".
The Secretary of State does not need another subsection.
I am surprised—I say that carefully but none the less seriously—that the Secretary of State is not here to deal with this part of the legislation because it covers the whole delicate and vital subject of electoral law and seeks to give


him the power which one of the other amendments seeks to delete, and which enables him to act as he thinks necessary or expedient.
We do not believe that at this stage we should give a hostage to fortune and allow a supplementary order to be brought before the House, whatever the procedural advantages of the mechanism for which the Government have provided — as opposed to other procedural advantages—which is not necessarily consequential, and the less substantial amendments would have that matter inserted. Clause 1(2) allows the Secretary of State enormous discretion.
We do not know the details. We should know what would happen if this House or the other place, when it sees the Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils, and has confirmed that the Government's policies are a muddle and have not been thought through, decides to reject the Bill. We should know when there will be elections, in what form they will be and how they will take place.
The Government are yet again—the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) used the phrase—asking for a blank cheque, without precedent, on a matter of electoral law. The Minister did not try to pretent that there was any precedent. We shall therefore press this matter to a Division. I believe that the Minister wishes to intervene before I do that.

Mr. Waldegrave: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I hope that he will agree that there is no blank cheque here. The matter is limited, as I said, first, to the areas concerned and, secondly, to what is necessary and expedient. The only reason for not trying to describe that in more detail is that one could land oneself potentially in legal difficulties if one did.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister look at page 2? He will see that clause 1(3) states:
An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient including provisions
to amend two enormous pieces of legislation, with all the schedules, that the Secretary of State might suddenly decide need a change to alter the balance of power in other authorities to compensate for elections elsewhere. It is an open-ended commitment. The only way in which this House can check that is to have a debate on an order, but even that does not give us an opportunity for proper considered debate on constitutional safeguards on a matter such as this.
The courts would not intervene. I do not believe that the advisers in the Department of the Environment or the Law Officers of the Crown would have advised that the courts would stop the Secretary of State doing what he wanted once this Bill was on the statute book.
I know of no constitutional precedent that says that such an act would be ultra vires, because the Bill's whole purpose, provided that we are talking only about the GLC and the metropolitan areas and elections, is to allow the Secretary of State to return with proposals to defer the matter from May 1985 to May 1986 or May 1987 and there would be no obligation for it to come back until the next general election.
The whole power is discretionary. Clause 1(2) contains the phrase
The Secretary of State may by order".

The Secretary of State has given a commitment that he will, but there is no legal, parliamentary or constitutional guarantee that he would. There are other ways in which the matter could be drafted, but the best way would be to leave out clause 1(3) and let the Secretary of State come before us with a proper proposal which we can then consider. The proposal is not good enough and should be rejected, whatever our views about the substantive issues, the GLC, the metropolitan counties or the goings on in any of them.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister paid me the compliment of taking on the chin some remarks that I made about our Second Reading debate part 2, which we had earlier this evening. They were about taking away the people's right to vote for things and people that they have voted for for a century, and about the whiff of totalitarianism. He could deny neither of those charges. Therefore, it behoves the Committee to look carefully at legislation such as this, because if we are taking away those rights, may it not be possible that the Government are taking on more powers through such legislation than they should have?

Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Member asks me to deny the charges, I shall do so, but I assure him that the Act as written does not give the wide powers that he fears that it does.

Mr. Spearing: I shall come to the latter point soon, but on the other point, although he denies it, the Minister is wrong, because, quite patently, the Secretary of State made a statement that was not correct, in so far as the Bill takes away a century of rights, to vote, including those of women, since the year 1888. That has about it a whiff of totalitarianism, because London will no longer be able to govern itself in terms of all-London services. I challenge any hon. Member to get up and deny that fact. The one follows from the other, and that is why this legislation, and our debates on it, are of a different order from some of the debates that we have had in this Parliament so far. That is why my hon. Friends are extremely angry. If it was Yorkshire, Essex of Surrey county council being abolished, then we should hear all about it from Conservative Members.
I shall now move away from the lightning and thunder and back to the point. The Minister was kind enough to say that I had seen something of the purposes of subsection (3) in my previous speech. However, the Minister has not replied to my point about why subsection (3) is couched in wider terms than the needs of subsection (2). We are assured by him that it does not go wider, but he then said something to the effect that the Government have to be sure that the provisions cannot be challenged. I know what parliamentary draftsmen are like, and if I were one, I should make sure that I took powers that would cover me. The Minister is not a parliamentary draftsman; he is introducing the legislation. He may be advised that it is desirable to go fairly wide, but the question is whether the House should allow it to go that wide.
The Minister said, and the Committee understood, that subsection (3) is to modify electoral arrangements, or conceivably even the composition of councils—although that is going a bit far—should elections be necessary because the next Bill fails to get a Second Reading. Let us accept that for the moment, and let us accept that it is necessary to do it by Order in Council, not as legislation, which is what the hon. Member for Southwark and


Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) questioned. The Minister has to say why this has to be done by order. In that case, why are not the powers in subsection (3) constrained by such words as "such as are necessary in relation to elections", or "as necessary for the composition of the local authorities aforesaid", or whatever it may be. If those words were put in to restrict the use of subsection (3), the House would be satisfied. It is the non-restricted element, the deliberate—I hope not purposeful—use of the words
as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient
that is worrying. The House is going with the Secretary of State as far as the reinstatement of the elections, so why not put that in as the restraining purpose in the other place, or on Report? I leave that question for the Minister to answer when he replies.
The second substantive point that needs to be made is about what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was concerned about additional powers restricting the finances of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman said that the power will be restricted within the long title. If he reads that, he will see the words:
Make provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils … and to confer rights in respect of the accounts and finances of those authorities on London borough councils . . . and metropolitan district councils.
12.30 am
Does the phrase "confer rights" mean that the Secretary of State may confer duties and restrictions also? It may refer to the rights of law as well as to the rights that are associated with expenditure under, say, section 137. That would confirm my hon. Friend's view.
However, if the Minister said, at my suggestion, that the form of words in subsection (3) in relation to the purposes of election would be inserted, we could forget about the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. I look forward to the Minister's reply. The essence of the problem is that the draftsmen want to make the provision wide and that Parliament, rightly, wishes to make subsection (3) refer entirely to the purposes of election, should they be necessary again. I hope that they will.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Michael Shaw): The Question is, That the amendment—

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order. I can understand that you have started to put the Question, Sir Michael, as there was no indication that a Minister wished to reply. However, I have asked a specific question and should like to hear a reply.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have begun to put the Question, and I must now do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 289.

Division No. 285]
[12.32 am


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Tony


Ashdown, Paddy
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blair, Anthony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyes, Roland


Barnett, Guy
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)



Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Caborn, Richard
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Ian
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKelvey, William


Clarke, Thomas
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clay, Robert
McTaggart, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Martin, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Maxton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Michie, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mikardo, Ian


Cowans, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Craigen, J. M.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Nellist, David


Cunningham, Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Brien, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
O'Neill, Martin


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Dormand, Jack
Penhaligon, David


Douglas, Dick
Pike, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Radice, Giles


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Redmond, M.


Ewing, Harry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Faulds, Andrew
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Robertson, George


Flannery, Martin
Rogers, Allan


Forrester, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foster, Derek
Ryman, John


Foulkes, George
Sheerman, Barry


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Godman, Dr Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Golding, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M Vas E)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Snape, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Stott, Roger


Home Robertson, John
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint
Straw, Jack


Hoyle, Douglas
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wainwright, R.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wareing, Robert


Janner, Hon Greville
Weetch, Ken


John, Brynmor
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Winnick, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Berry, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Keith


Amess, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Body, Richard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Batiste, Spencer
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Beggs, Roy
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Bellingham, Henry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin






Brinton, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hayes, J.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John
Heddle, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hickmet, Richard


Budgen, Nick
Hind, Kenneth


Bulmer, Esmond
Hirst, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butcher, John
Holt, Richard


Butler, Hon Adam
Hooson, Tom


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Churchill, W. S.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Cockeram, Eric
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cope, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Corrie, John
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Couchman, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Kilfedder, James A.


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Robert
Knowles, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Latham, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrea, Rev William


Fox, Marcus
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Franks, Cecil
Macfarlane, Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Galley, Roy
Maclean, David John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maginnis, Ken


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Greenway, Harry
Marland, Paul


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Antony


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mates, Michael


Grist, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mellor, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hannam, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Harris, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Harvey, Robert
Moate, Roger


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)





Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neale, Gerrard
Squire, Robin


Needham, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Neubert, Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Tony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Normanton, Tom
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Norris, Steven
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Onslow, Cranley
Stokes, John


Oppenheim, Philip
Stradling Thomas, J.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Sumberg, David


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Terlezki, Stefan


Parris, Matthew
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Powley, John
Thurnham, Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tracey, Richard


Raffan, Keith
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Tim
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhodes James, Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waddington, David


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Walden, George


Rost, Peter
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Rowe, Andrew
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Watson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Watts, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, John


Scott, Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Woodcock, Michael


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Carol Mather and


Speller, Tony
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Spencer, Derek

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 143.

Division No. 286]
[12.45 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Richard


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brinton, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Britten, Rt Hon Leon


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Bruinvels, Peter


Best, Keith
Bryan, Sir Paul


Bevan, David Gilroy
Buck, Sir Antony






Budgen, Nick
Hirst, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butcher, John
Hooson, Tom


Butler, Hon Adam
Hordern, Peter


Butterfill, John
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carttiss, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cope, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Corrie, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cranborne, Viscount
Key, Robert


Crouch, David
Kilfedder, James A.


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Favell, Anthony
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Nicholas


Forth, Eric
McCrea, Rev William


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacGregor, John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David John


Galley, Roy
Madel, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Major, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malone, Gerald


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Antony


Greenway, Harry
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hannam, John
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Harris, David
Moate, Roger


Harvey, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hawksley, Warren
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayes, J.
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Heddle, John
Neubert, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hickmet, Richard
Normanton, Tom


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steven





Onslow, Cranley
Stanley, John


Oppenheim, Philip
Stern, Michael


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Ottaway, Richard
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Parris, Matthew
Stokes, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, Barry
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Terlezki, Stefan


Powley, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Renton, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trippier, David


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waddington, David


Ryder, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walden, George


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waller, Gary


Scott, Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wheeler, John


Shersby, Michael
Whitfield, John


Silvester, Fred
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Michael


Speller, Tony
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Derek
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Carol Mather and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


NOES


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Ashdown, Paddy
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cowans, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnett, Guy
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, h"ge H'I)


Benn, Tony
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Blair, Anthony
Dormand, Jack


Boyes, Roland
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Ewing, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Flannery, Martin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Forrester, John


Clarke, Thomas
Foster, Derek


Clay, Robert
Foulkes, George


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Cohen, Harry
George, Bruce


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Conlan, Bernard
Godman, Dr Norman






Golding, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Park, George


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parry, Robert


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pendry, Tom


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Penhaligon, David


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Douglas
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Redmond, M.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Janner, Hon Greville
Robertson, George


John, Brynmor
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John


Kirkwood, Archibald
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Litherland, Robert
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Steel, Rt Hon David


McTaggart, Robert
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wareing, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Meadowcroft, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Michie, William
Winnick, David


Mikardo, Ian
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Roger Thomas.


O'Brien, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLORS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No.69, in page 2, line 14, at beginning insert
'Except as provided for by subsection (1A) below.'

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 70, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply as respects the election of councillors of the Greater London Council by local government electors for an inner London borough or the City for membership of the Inner London Education Authority.'.
No. 71, in page 2, line 22, at beginning insert
'Except in respect of membership of the Inner London Education Authority.'.
No. 66, in clause 11, page 8, line 37, at end add—
'(4) In this Act the expressions "inner London borough", "the City" and "Inner London Education Authority" have the same meaning as in the London Government Act 1963.'.
No. 67, in schedule 2, page 14, line 27, leave out subparagraph (12).
No. 68, in schedule 3, page 15, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 20.

Mr. Hughes: Amendment No. 69 is the first of a series of amendments which are of substantial importance and

which relate to the education service in London and to the way in which it is to be run in the years ahead. Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71—all of which stand in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself —would have the effect of continuing uninterrupted the system whereby the members of ILEA are elected by the electors of the inner London boroughs concerned and by the City of London.
Under clause 2, there will be no election of councillors to the GLC or the metropolitan councils next year. Under the present system, whenever there is an election for a GLC councillor, there is, at the same time—because they come into office by the same route—an election for an ILEA councillor. Those elected to represent the inner London boroughs on the GLC also serve on a special committee of the GLC-ILEA. Therefore, those elected to serve on ILEA also have the responsibilities that go with being a Greater London councillor.
Our proposals are independent of whatever view the Government or the Department of the Environment, in particular, may take of the elections that are held for Greater London councillors whose work does not involve ILEA. I think that the Secretary of State and others will accept that it is quite possible for elections to ILEA to be held without necessarily holding elections for the noneducational functions of the GLC in inner London at the same time.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science may be advised to say that if we had a direct election next year for members of the Inner London education authority we should need a different formula because that would involve electing to a specific authority instead of a GLC committee. That is not a substantive objection to our proposals.
1 am
At present 35 GLC councillors are elected by local government electors in inner London constituencies. The last election was in 1981. Twelve people represent each of the boroughs comprising the inner London education area. The logic of their place on ILEA is that they are the link between that authority, the grouped education authorities in inner London and the boroughs which they serve directly. In addition, one representative of the common council of the City of London is appointed as the link between the City of London and the authority.
Ever since ILEA was set up, 35 of the 48 councillors have been directly elected. Therefore, there has been a majority at all times of people who serve by direct election rather than by nomination by borough councils or the City of London.
We should like the Government to accept the second step down the road that the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that the Government were prepared to take when he made the announcement to the House in April.
When the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" and its supplementary documents were produced the proposal was that a nominated body or board, not a directly elected body, should run education in inner London. The Secretary of State admitted—we were grateful to him— that the bulk of evidence to his Department in response to the White Paper was in favour of direct elections to ILEA being continued.
The Secretary of State announced that a directly elected Inner London education authority will continue. He was


generous enough to make another concession. That was in response to the question which I put to him about having in this calender year, until May 1985, a directly elected ILEA. If the proposals stand, there will then be a nominated, indirectly elected ILEA. I assume that in 1986 —when the GLC ends—there will once again be a directly elected ILEA. If ever there was a recipe for muddled confusion and poor service, as well as administrative incompetence, that is it.
When London was governed by a county council and a Royal Commission was set up in 1924 under Lord Ullswater, the then increasingly important figure in London Labour party politics, Herbert Morrison argued, as he did in the 1930s, that the muddle of local government in Greater London either meant that Governments or Parliament wished it to be a muddle on the divide and conquer principle, or that they possessed neither the initiative nor courage to grasp the problem boldly and settle it.
What was manifestly the case when the Secretary of State made his announcement on 5 April was that the Department of Education and Science and the Government were not grasping boldly and settling the problem in regard to the constitution of ILEA. It is ludicrous that within one year we are likely to have three different forms of ILEA.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I am sure that the hon. Member would like to correct what he has just said. He said that we are moving from a directly elected ILEA. The present members of ILEA have not been elected as members of ILEA. Only about 35 per cent. are from the GLC and are elected as GLC councillors.

Mr. Hughes: That is not correct. I speak with a modicum of authority simply because I stood for election to that authority. I think I knew what I was standing for. I stood on a ticket that, if I had succeeded, would have put me into the GLC and entitled me automatically to serve on ILEA. As I said earlier, it is a special committee of the GLC made up automatically of those members of the GLC elected for the 12 boroughs in inner London which comprise the inner London education authority.
It is also the education authority which is parallel to every other education authority in England and Wales, all of which are directly elected, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) will know. In other places they are formed by the county councillors but in Greater London there are several education authorities; there is one for inner London and the other boroughs are their own education authorities. Therefore, they are directly elected, although I have made the point that it is not always a simple and clear election because people are standing in the same election for the two jobs.
The Liberal party has always argued that it would have been better, and now, therefore, something to which we look forward, to have a separate election so that electors know that they are electing someone to do exclusively the job of being on the education authority for inner London.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We are talking about democratic accountability, which means presumably that one knows who the leaders are as well as who the members are. Therefore, can the hon. Gentleman remind us who the leader of the Labour group on ILEA was before the last GLC election, who became the leader of ILEA after the election, who the leader is now and how the electorate could have expected any of those things to happen?

Mr. Hughes: The old well tried and tested argument is being made by the hon. Gentleman which is that occasionally one person leads a group into an election and later the group changes its leader. That is rare, but it has happened both in his party when it was in government as well as in bodies such as ILEA. ILEA has a right to change its leader. The GLC has the right to do it and the Tory party did it. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) led the Tory Party into the election arid about a year later was replaced by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
I do not think it matters particularly now who the leader of ILEA was before the last election. We are talking about the way in which the electorate elect the inner London education authority. One hopes — no doubt the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) would express the hope too if he were honest—that one is electing people on policies and not on personalities. If that is the case, one is talking about the policies for education. That is another reason why these amendments are crucial. Proper and consistent education policies cannot be developed if the authority is to be changed three times in 12 months.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Member agree that the elections for the GLC and ILEA have been based, certainly in regard to the Labour party, on manifestos which gave equal prominence to education matters as to other matters in London? I speak as a member of the GLC who happens to be an elected member of ILEA at the same time. I know that in my GLC constituency of Tooting education plays a prominent part during what is called a GLC election. The two authorities might be separate, but there is no great distinction between the relationship between the GLC and ILEA and the local authority that has an education committee. It is wrong for Conservative Members to suggest that when people in London vote for the GLC they do not know what they are voting for in respect of ILEA.

Mr. Hughes: That is right. The parallel is the elections for the county councils. One of the services that those elected provide is the management of education.. I recollect that in my election address in 1981 for the GLC election both I and my opponents dealt with education.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in inner London the position is quite clear? Anyone who votes for a candidate for the GLC in inner London knows that that person must become a member of the ILEA. In a county or borough, it cannot be guaranteed that a candidate voted into office will become a member of the education committee because the membership will be decided by the various groups on the councils.

Mr. Hughes: The difference is that the county councils are the education authorities, whereas in inner London there is the additional guarantee that we know exactly what function those elected will carry out.

Mr. Tracey: There is the additional factor that when the elections for borough councils are held people vote on the quality of the dustbin and street cleaning services. However, as candidates elected can serve on ILEA, it is possible for the control of ILEA to change.

Mr. Hughes: That is true. When there is an authority of 48 people, of whom 35 come by one route and 13 by another, it is possible for those 13 to change the power of


the authority. My party has long believed that the best way to ensure that electors can regularly reflect their views democratically is by regular elections. For example, those who stood for London borough council elections in 1982 had the policies of their boroughs in large part determined by the fact that a Falklands war was taking place. That had nothing to do with the issues affecting Southwark or other boroughs. There was no chance for the electorate to revise its view the following year.
It is possible in some parts of the country to decide to have elections in three out of four years, which produces a more regular revision. So the point made by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has some merit. To have direct elections for ILEA would not necessarily mean that everybody should be elected at the same time. That argument can be developed on another occasion.
If the proposal is unamended by the Government—and I am not sure whether it needs amendment or whether it is something that they have not thought through and therefore needs development—for the first time since 1870 there will be a period when inner London will not have a directly elected education authority. It has been accepted for decades that, because of the particular needs of inner London, the cosmopolitan aspects of its education service and the problems in providing the adequate range of educational facilities for an area that has always been deprived — and on any indicator of deprivation inner London is the most deprived area in Britain — there should be one united education authority. That has been never been in doubt and the Secretary of State said on 5 April that there was no doubt that ILEA—in terms of an authority with the boundaries of ILEA as created in 1964, with its predecessors covering the same area—should continue to exist. However, the proposals would have the effect of removing for a year the directly elected mechanism of that authority.
I accept that there have been voices—for example, the leader of the Conservative group on ILEA, who for a considerable time advocated separate direct elections—speaking up for regional government in London. However, I claim boldy — although I cannot claim to have looked at every treatise put out by every party over the years — that we are the only party which has consistently advocated regional government in London, irrespective of our position, in or out of power.
Throughout the 1920s, and in evidence that we gave in the 1960s and 1970s, we argued that there should be a regional authority in London and an education authority in inner London. The Labour party, when in opposition in the GLC, wanted it to be abolished, and the Conservative party, when in government in the GLC, wanted it to be extended, so that six years on we have a complete reversal of positions in both of the major parties, whereas we have always said that inner London should have its education authority as part of a greater and wider regional authority.
How can it be right that the people who are in ILEA today and who will be ineligible to be on ILEA from 1985 to 1986—because they are not members of borough authorities and, therefore, will not be nominated from the boroughs but who will, one presumes, be eligible to stand again in 1986—will be deprived of their opportunity to continue serving ILEA for a year and will be replaced by

borough councillors, with the workload of borough councillors, who will not have experience of running the largest education authority in Western Europe?
We are talking about services. We are not here to play administrative games. We are here to plan for the education of our children. It will be difficult enough for an authority, at a time of rate capping and financial stringency, to do that. It will be far more difficult if all those coming in in 1985 have not had previous experience. It is even less likely that those concerned will do a good job if they will not have responsibility for the continuity of policy beyond 1986, for they will leave office after a year, leaving others to take over as a result of the borough elections in 1986, making them caretakers without a longterm interest and without competence in the short-term to do the job.
The consequences have been set out in many documents by the officers of ILEA, for whom we have great respect, and I quote from only one to show how bad the Government's proposals are. In a report dated 28 November last, the education officer of ILEA said:
The proposed change to the membership of the education authority has the effect of removing the means by which since 1870"—
the point I made—
inner Londoners have been able directly to elect representatives on to the body responsible for education. A long-standing tradition in the capital city would therefore be broken and the joint board would be unique amongst the 104 local education authorities in England and Wales. It would be the only education authority with all its members appointed by nomination from other bodies.
Under the proposals members of the board"—
1985-86 for one year—
will … be required to participate in the work of a borough council in addition to that of of the education authority. There is a tendency, even within the Authority, to take the demands made on elected members somewhat for granted. These are considerable and derive largely from the involvement of members in the work of the various committees and subcommittees of the Authority. In addition members have traditionally been available to take part in formal consultation and to receive delegations and deputations from parents, governing bodies and others interested in the education service. All of these require substantial personal commitment from members.
The Secretary of State or one of his ministerial colleagues may say, "In any event, these members have other jobs as members of the GLC". But they were elected to ILEA presumably because they had some interest in doing the job. Since then they have had four years' experience in doing the job. It is proposed that we give responsibility for one year only to nominees who did not stand for election to ILEA and did not show a preference to work in education. They will be concentrating on the problems of their own local authorities, which are considerable in inner London boroughs because of all the restrictions that the Government place upon them, and on their own re-election. It can hardly be guaranteed that local people will be provided dispassionately with the best service, except for those who are represented by someone who has decided not to stand again. No doubt there will be many who will spend much of their time cultivating their electorates for the next round of elections, at which they hope that they will be returned to their borough councils.
The education officer continued:
the detailed work of the Authority"—
it has nine committees and I need not trouble the Committee by referring to them all. They include


committees on higher education, schools, staff and appeals. The financial implications involve phenomenally detailed calculations, which one would expect as ILEA is the largest education authority in Western Europe. It is vital that we give the authority the composition that will allow it to do the best job.
We ask the Government to move on from the position at which the Secretary of State left the argument on 5 April, when he said that the arguments for three authorities in 12 months had a certain ridiculousness about them. Indeed, he put it more positively than that and said that the arguments suggesting that we should have a different system had "a certain validity". We ask him to say that it is possible and practicable to exempt from the Government's proposals the elections to ILEA so that next year we can continue to have elections to the body which runs education in inner London. This will ensure continuity of service, clarity of purpose and a far better education service than we would otherwise have. Instead, the Government propose that it should be run by a set of harassed officers who will be directed by over-worked, confused and inexperienced members for one year only. That is about the best evidence that all the proposals in the Bill are badly thought out.
The amendments that accompany amendment No. 69 are complementary but subsidiary. This series of amendments is designed to ensure elections for ILEA next year and to exempt them from the other provisions in the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): The official Opposition support the Liberal party's proposal that there should continue to be an elected Inner London education authority, with an election taking place in 1985 and with no break in the continuity of the authority. By supporting the amendment we do not derogate from the argument that we have advanced throughout the consideration of the Bill and in previous discussions, that all GLC councilors should continue to be elected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) likened the Secretary of State for the Environment to a Caesar. Yesterday during Environment questions the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) raised a religious note, and I thought that a good comparison with the Secretary of State was a later inhabitant of Rome, Pope Alexander VI. The Secretary of State bears several resemblances to that pope. The right hon. Gentleman is doing for the integrity and independence of local government what Pope Alexander VI did for chastity. The Borgia of Marsham street has the same type of respect for political opponents as the Borgia family in Italy at the time of the Renaissance. They were always willing to snuff out a political opponent, and that is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to change the nature of ILEA more often the Pope Alexander VI was willing to change the functions of his son, Cesare Borgia.
I do not accuse the Secretary of State for Education and Science of having any links with the papacy. We are grateful for his more liberal attitude towards democracy in London and his announcement in the House on 5 April about an elected ILEA. We have no quarrel with his welcome announcement that that will happen in the longterm. We are worried about the continuity of that body.
Because of the combination of those decisions, we shall have an Inner London education authority playing a type

of administrative hop-scotch. Until May 1985, we shall have the present elected body with a majority elected by inner London constituencies, supplemented by representatives of the inner London boroughs. In the following year, there will be appointed members from the boroughs. They will not be accountable. They will not campaign on the doorstep and be directly known in the localities. I do not believe that anyone can guarantee that the third phase will occur on 1 May 1986. All sorts of things may happen between now and then. If the Government's plans go well, there will be a third phase of administrative hop-scotch when the newly elected ILEA takes office in May 1986.
There is no reasonable justification for the Government to interfere with the continuity of ILEA. I shall draw a parallel. If a democratic state—whether a federal state or a nation state—with a population of 2·5 million and a spending power of £900 million found that its elections and ability to make spending decisions were taken from it, that would be regarded as a coup and a negation of democracy. In a sense that is exactly what the Government are doing with ILEA.
The Government can find in their minds—this is not in ours—two justifications for their actions. First, the Government believe that an election for ILEA in May 1985 will be seen as a referendum on the Government's plans not just for ILEA but the whole of London. The Government are afraid of a test at the ballot box of their plans for London in May 1985. They are afraid of even a limited test of what they will do to ILEA and London government generally. That is why they want to put off the elections, at least until May 1986.
The Government's second justification for their interference is that they can thereby control ILEA. Even when we return to the Secretary of State's form of democracy for ILEA in May 1986, it will be as guided democracy, because if we look at the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" those people who are elected in 1986 will not be able to implement their election promises. Their budgeting capabilities will be limited at least for a period of three years under the proposals in "Streamlining the Cities".
1.30 am
The Government's second justification, in their own mind, is that they will be better able to control ILEA's budget if there are no elections. As I understand it, but perhaps the Secretary of State can tell the Committee what his latest proposals are, the Secretary of State has in mind a cut in ILEA's budget of about £120 million during that controlled three-year period. That is about 13 per cent. of its budget.
In the Ottoman empire they used to take away every 10th child of subject races to press it into service in the Ottoman army. The Secretary of State's proposals involve, literally, taking away the cost of the education of every 10th child in London. It will cut from ILEA's budget two thirds of the money that is spent on primary education in inner London, one half of the money spent on secondary education in inner London, and five times the total amount of expenditure in inner London on nursery education. That is bound to have a serious effect on the standards of education which the people of London have chosen for themselves.
I cannot emphasise enough that not a penny comes from the Treasury to pay for the education of children in London. They are the choices that people in London made


for themselves through the democratic process. If the people of London continue to choose to accord priority to their children and their education that should be a matter for them, and not a matter for the diktat of the Department of the Environment or the Department of Education and Science.
I believe that parents and people in inner London have a high political consciousness, and understand and know what they want. They are not lunatic, and they are not militant in the pejorative sense that Conservative Members use; they are a highly intelligent and political group of people who understand the choices that lie before them and want to vote for more expenditure on their children.
When writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) on 17 April, the Secretary of State for Education and Science said:
I believe that direct elections will make the successor body more accountable and responsive to its electorate and more ready to look for value for money and quality in education.
When they elect ILEA the people of London may feel that they do not want to save money, and cut the amount provided for education; they may want to spend more on education and improve the quality and standards of education for their children and for adults.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Who pays?

Mr. Fraser: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary asks who pays. They pay themselves, and that is a choice that they are free to make, and it is one they should be able to continue to make without an interregnum of a year, at least, between 1985 and 1986.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science said:
A basic difference between democratic and authoritarian government is that in free societies, it is the job of government to find ways of enabling the values, aspirations and purposes of the people to be implemented. In authoritarian societies the government imposes its values and objectives on society.
Those are the words of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but the sentiments are those of the Opposition.
In London there is an easy way to enable parents, electors and citizens to mark out their aspirations and hopes for their children and for the society in which they live. That is by means of having uninterrupted, democratic control of ILEA. Any other formula will be disruptive, and will bring about confusion and a misunderstanding between one group and another as to who controls and pilots ILEA through a difficult period. It is for that reason that we strongly support, without prejudice or arguments about electing other people in London, the proposition that there should be continued continuity of elections for ILEA, and that is why we shall support the amendment.

Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea): Originally, the Government did not intend to allow elections to ILEA. Along with many hon. Members and many citizens of London, we welcomed the change announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he conceded to overwhelming pressure, and to the concern that the Government were seeking to take away the democratic rights of Londoners to influence education. However, welcome though the change was, we are left in what can only be described as a mess. The effect of the Bill, which has already been described by other hon.

Members, will be to put the control of ILEA under three different types of body in just over a year. That seems to make no sense.
I listened with great interest to the Secretary of State when he made the announcement about the change on 5 April. In reply to a question on this point, he said:
So far as I understand it, there is provision for some of the members of the present Inner London education authority to have a continuing existence in the successor authority. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that these important details are not for the paving Bill, but for the main Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman was right about some possible continuity of membership because, of the 13 members appointed by either the inner London boroughs or the city of London, 12 could theoretically continue to serve on ILEA for the interim period, that is from May 1985 to May 1986. Nevertheless, that was a rather lame answer, and missed the main point at issue. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State said:
these important details are not for the paving Bill but for the main Bill." — [Official Report, 5 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. I 127 .]
If we are to leave the decision until the main Bill is presented to the House, we can hardly avoid having three different types of control over ILEA.
The Secretary of State nods in agreement, and if he does so, he must also nod in agreement when I say that it is unreasonable that the largest education authority in the country should be subjected to these changes. That makes no sense in terms of consistency, morale, good management or political accountability. I cannot for the life of me understand how the Government are seeking to impose such nonsense on ILEA. What is more, the worst of these phases will be the appointed body. It will have on it borough councillors who may not even have thought when they were elected a couple of years ago that they would be called on to represent their borough on ILEA. They may have no particular interest in education and, along with all their other responsibilities, they will have very little time for education in London. This will happen, as I understand it, when the Rates Bill will begin to bite. The imposition of rate capping will have to be borne by the very people who will be in office for only one year, and some of whom may have been dragooned into serving on ILEA for the interim period. They will have to make difficult decisions if the Rates Bill has the effect that the Government have suggested that it will, and it will make ILEA the Government's number one target.
I should have thought that to impose this particularly onerous and, to my mind unacceptable, burden on councillors who may not be particularly interested in education makes no sense. I can assume only that the provision has not been properly thought out or that the Government are scared of having an election that may not give them the result that they want. In other words, the election that would otherwise take place in 1986 would be an endorsement of the Opposition's policies rather than those of the Government.
The Inner London education authority has a difficult problem by anyone's standards in terms of the number of disadvantaged children, one-parent families, different languages and cultures that are encompassed in schools within the authority. Because of those problems, I believe that ILEA should be treated with rather more respect than the Government are affording it.
The tragedy of the present position is that ILEA's energies are being diverted from looking after the needs


of London's children into putting forward arguments as to why the Government's proposals will be damaging to education in London. We have reached a very sorry state of affairs when people who are dedicated to the education of children in London and who want to devote their political energies to its improvement are diverted from their main task simply because of the Government's curious attitude towards local government, especially in London.
I can only urge the Government to think again and to ensure that direct elections take place, even if there must be a change in the structure. I suppose that there must be changes because the boundary changes that affected us as Members of Parliament at the previous election would, of course, apply to new members of the GLC and ILEA, if elections continued until May 1986. For that reason, if for no other, there would have to be a change in the structure of elections but that could be taken in their stride by those standing for election.
I urge the Government to think again. If they do not, the effect on morale and the quality of educational administration in London is bound to suffer. That is not to anyone's advantage. If the Government cared about the education of London's children, they would concede the real point at issue and accept the amendment, so that there will be continuity of administration and of democratically elected administrations. In that way at least, ILEA could survive some of the turmoil of the proposed changes.

Mr. Dobson: Setting aside all questions of the Government's lack of principle in trying to gerrymander elections out of the way in London, I shall put forward some pragmatic arguments. It seems, especially as loutish Tory Members are without connections with children's education, including that provided by inner London schools, that there are good, pragmatic grounds for rejecting the Government's proposals and for supporting the amendments.
Since 1979, Ministers have made successive attacks on ILEA in Parliament, as have some of their extra-parliamentary supporters in London. As a result, much uncertainty has been created in the authority about its future. Those attacks have diverted a dramatic amount of effort by parents, teachers and the elected members of ILEA from what they would regard as their main role in maintaining and improving education standards in inner London. All that effort had to be diverted into defending ILEA's very existence. That has meant half a decade of damage to the interests of most children in inner London schools and of young people in inner London colleges.
We now need to end that diversion of effort and to bring about the stability that the children of Inner London need if they are to get a decent education. I speak as a parent of children who go to ILEA schools and as someone who represents parents who are most concerned about the disturbance to their children's education over the past five years.
1.45 am
Therefore, it was welcome to most people in Inner London when the Secretary of State on 5 April announced, rightly, that he would go back on what appeared to be the Government's proposition — the abolition of direct elections—and to accept the principle of direct elections to the ILEA continuing. But in view of that it seems quite mad for the Government not to accept that the direct elections should go ahead next year when the currency of

the term of office of the present elected members runs out. It is strange that, having swallowed the camel or the horse of the principle of direct elections, the Secretary of State and his colleagues are straining at the gnat when they are brought in. The only thing that can happen if there is an interim regime between the present ILEA and the subsequently elected one is that there we will be damage to the education service in London and to the education provided to the children and young people of inner London.
Anybody who thinks about it must recognise that that damage is almost bound to result. Therefore, we are forced to look for ulterior motives for what the Government are proposing. What stands out when one considers what the Government are proposing both in the Bill and in the other measures which are going through both Houses is that the Government want a weak, incompetent and unrepresentative group of people running ILEA from the spring of 1985 to the spring of 1986 because that would make it easier to put through the rate capping of the inner ILEA to the infinite damage of the education service in London.
The Secretary of State cannot have any other grounds for not accepting that there should be direct elections to the ILEA this time next year. We in the Labour party in London challenge the Conservatives and all other parties to call elections for ILEA this time next year because we are confident that the people of inner London will support ILEA as they have done for the past decade and will return Labour people to control that authority and to continue to pursue the progressive ILEA policies which are designed to bring about a better education service for our children.
We do not believe by any means that ILEA or the service that it provides are anywhere near perfect and we are horrified at the prospect of a weak and incompetent interim arrangement which would allow the Government to do even more damage than they have done in the past.

Mr. Corbyn: We are all grateful to the Secretary of State for being here tonight. I hope that he is not too tired later when he has to face an audience of over 2,000 parents of ILEA children at a large meeting at Central hall, Westminster. Many of those parents will be extremely interested in the answer that he gives as to why it is necessary for ILEA to have three administrations in two years and why he is deliberately denying them the right to have an elected authority for the interim year between the time the Government propose to end the existing arrangements and introduce the elective ones.
The Secretary of State must realise the concern there is all over Inner London about the way that ILEA has been treated and about the way that the concept of an elected education authority has been treated. Those Conservative Members who find this so amusing should perhaps visit some ILEA schools. They would then find out exactly how strongly parents and children feel about the way in which the Government have been treating ILEA.
ILEA is a unique education authority in many ways. It is a uniquely good education authority in its attempts to provide a decent standard of education for children throughout inner London and in recognising the difficult social backgrounds from which many of the children come. It is also unique in the way that it has been treated by the Government. It is the only education authority to receive not one penny from the Government for education spending. It is also unique in that it is being told the amount of money that it should cut off its existing budget.


In the current financial year ILEA's budget will be £912 million. That is a great deal of money. All of it is being raised from within inner London because the Government have refused to recognise the education needs of children in inner London. It demonstrates their contempt for poorer people that they will not pay a penny towards fulfilling those needs.
It is also a demonstration of the Government's arrogance in their attitude to education in London that they are informing ILEA that, to be even within target to receive Government grant in the future, there should be a cut of more than £120 million in its budget. If anyone imagines that such a cut could be achieved without the most devastating consequences on parents, non-teaching staff and teaching staff in the schools, I ask him to visualise a few schools and to think of the services that would be affected. A cut of that size would be disproportionate across a great many services. It would be disproportionate on the non-statutory services. Further and higher education would be especially hard hit, as would pre-school and nursery services. Those are the areas most in need and most valued by people in London who rely on the education service to fulfil their own potential, and they are treated with the greatest contempt by the Government.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the very last need of inner London is the removal of its right to elect people to its education authority and, instead, having to go through this sordid period of appointed quangos during which all sorts of havoc can be wreaked on the service.
I also ask the Committee to consider the effect of having three administrations in a period of two years on those who work for ILEA. Before my election to the House, I spent seven years as an organiser for the National Union of Public Employees in ILEA. Many of those who get up at six o'clock in the morning to clean schools, to cook meals for children or to do the dirty jobs in schools that many Government supporters would like to see privatised, feel very strongly about these matters, because they would much prefer to be employed by an authority that had been directly elected and that had some sense of responsibility towards them and some concern for their well-being. That is also behind much of the Government attitude towards ILEA. The non-teaching side would be as badly hit as the teaching side and the direct education side if the Government' policies were implemented and their cuts were introduced. Thousands of part-time women workers would lose their jobs as a result, which would increase unemployment and impose yet more charges on another branch of the Government, the Department of Health and Social Security.
The way that the ILEA is being treated is a microcosm of the way that working-class communities all over the country are being treated.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Speaking as one who is connected with education, I can assure the Committee that the struggle to defend the Inner London education authority is close to the hearts of all those in the teaching profession. The work that the authority has done with deprived, dispossessed and coloured children has earned the admiration of everyone involved in education and teaching. Today, teachers have been on strike against the Government for a living wage.
All members of the profession are solidly behind the struggle to preserve a dignified Inner London education authority.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has struggled for many years to achieve better education in Britain, and he recognises that the fight to maintain services in ILEA commands wide support in the community. If Conservative Members who do not have the privilege to represent inner London constituencies cared to visit schools and meet parents and children there, they would recognise their depth of feeling about this.
I understand that in response to the Government's consultation paper there were about 2,000 strong representations from organisations against the proposals in the Government's consultation paper, and only three in favour of them. If my figures are wrong, the Minister has the opportunity to correct them. I also wish to know how many people in inner London wrote in to defend their schools, nurseries, evening classes, higher education places and adult education establishments, and how many of them got a reply from the Department. The reason I mention this is that many hundreds of my constituents took the trouble of writing to the Secretary of State, and the best reply that they received was that the Secretary of State thanked them for writing to him. He did not say why he thanked them, nor did he say what he intended to do about their representations. That is disgraceful.
The way in which the Government have refused to recognise the differing problems in inner London is also disgraceful. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) mentioned the ethnic minority and anti-racist teaching programmes that ILEA had mounted. They are an example that many other education authorities are trying to follow. However, the Government's attitude is to penalise it for even attempting to introduce new teaching methods or to provide education in poor and deprived areas. ILEA has been singled out for direct ministerial control of its finances until 1990. If that is not bad enough, the ultimate slap in the face is that the Government concede the right of people in inner London to elect an education authority, but then take it away for the interim year.
I hope that the Committee recognises that that is a disgraceful way to treat inner London. If it was good enough in 1870—in Queen Victoria's time—to elect an education authority, why is it not good enough now? Conservative Members may believe that inner London is a bit of a joke and nothing to do with them because their party has so little support there, but they should remember that the battle that has been fought in London for the education service and the right to have an elected authority will continue and will spread, and will be seen as an inspiration in other parts of the country. They will rue the day when they tried to treat inner London and the rest of the country badly.
I hope that the Committee will support this amendment, because it will mean that London will always have an elected education authority. I hope that the Committee recognises that, if this anomaly is removed, the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties must also be stopped.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State for Education and Science is undoubtedly a rare bird on the Government Front Bench, because he appears to have something


approaching an open mind on the proposals before the Committee. I do not suppose that he will ever tell me, but I have often wondered what the Secretary of State thought when he heard about the proposals of his colleagues for changes in the local government structure of London and the metropolitan county councils.
2 am
I read in Hansard a considerable number of the debates that led to the enactment of the Local Government Act 1963. The Secretary of State for Education and Science had a prominent part to play then in setting up the Greater London council. I am sure that he must have been upset by some of the comments that have been made in 1984 about the creation of which he was one of the midwives. I should like to know about the internal politicking that must have gone on inside the Conservative Cabinet, and on the Conservative Government Benches, that has allowed the Secretary of State for Education and Science to come up with a proposal that is at such variance with the proposals in the original White Paper. He has won a notable victory, and the Opposition are glad that he was able to do so. I should still be interested to read the real story. When he writes his diaries, we may all know what happened.
The Opposition will not oppose the amendment, because we want as many direct elections as we can get. However, we do not have to be grateful for the crumb that is being thrown to us, because, as Opposition Members have already pointed out, we have direct elections for the ILEA now, so we are not being given any bonus. We are merely being allowed to retain what already exists.
If it is possible to concede the case for direct elections for education, what is preventing the Government from conceding the case for direct elections for other services in London which it could be argued are of equal importance? Why not have direct elections for transport, although that has now been taken away from the GLC and is being vested in the London Regional Transport Authority, which is a quango? Why not have direct elections for the provision of housing, for the fire brigade, for public health and safety and for arts and recreation?
Democracy is not divisible, but that is the Government's objective. The haste with which the Government have conceded direct elections for the Inner London education authority has resulted from the amount of pressure brought against the proposals in London, as has already been mentioned by Opposition Members, and no doubt because of the lobbying that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been able to do for his part of the local government structure that is being carved up. I only wish that the Secretary of State would pass on a little of the magic to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who might then be more successful in trying to strengthen his own woefully inadequate arguments.
One proposal in the White Paper was that education would be the responsibility of an indirectly elected joint board. Now there are to be direct elections. I should like to know from the Secretary of State whether he will be amending the Bill to ensure that we do not have three administrations — not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, three ILEA administrations within two years, but three ILEA administrations within one year, because that is what the Committee is considering. Will the Secretary of State

allow amendments to enable the direct elections to take place in 1985 when they would normally have been taking place?
If the Secretary of State is now conceding the case for direct elections, will he be making further amendments, or will he be altering the proposals now set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 9063, with regard to his Department's direct control of the ILEA expenditure? It would be nonsense to concede the case for direct elections, and then effectively to take over the direct administration of the education authority. I should like to have answers to those two points.

Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North): Along with my hon. Friend the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser;) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I declare my interest as a satisfied ILEA parent. I know from direct experience that ILEA is an excellent authority which is setting educational standards in very difficult circumstances. For example, 147 different languages are spoken in the authority and it has a higher proportion of one-parent families than most authorities and a higher level of deprivation. Of course, the Secretary of State and I will be holding that debate later today in front of 2,000 ILEA parents, so I shall not stray on to that territory now.
We were delighted that the Secretary of State should have been forced to accept the argument for direct elections to ILEA, and we welcome his conversion. He has been forced to accept the argument because of the strength of the case for democracy, which is that those who run education should be directly accountable to the ratepayers and parents in that authority. The right hon. Gentleman has also been forced to accept the argument because of the overwhelming strength of feeling among ILEA parents and others concerned with education in the authority, including, of course, members of the Conservative party, as well as members of other parties and of no party at all.
The trouble is that if that argument applies to education, it must, in logic, also apply to the other functions. If it does not apply, the Secretary of State must say why not, and he has not done so convincingly yet. I believe that it has been reported in the press that other members of the Cabinet apparently told the Secretary of State, when he was arguing his corner in the Cabinet, that the ILEA decision would ultimately undermine the case for abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties. I am sure that that is right.
Another problem involves the way in which the new plan is being presented. We shall get three different forms of government in inner London in 13 months. That is ludicrous. We get the present ILEA this year, then the rule by appointed borough representatives next year, and then the separately elected body for education in the following year. That is a recipe for muddle, confusion and irresponsibility. I should have thought that, on administrative grounds, it was far preferable to go straight for a direct election next year. Of course, the Secretary' of State may be frightened that the May 1985 election will become a referendum on the Government's decision to abolish the GLC, to introduce the Rates Bill, and on the general handling of education in inner London and perhaps in the nation as a whole.
For all those reasons, the Secretary of State may be frightened about having an election in May 1985. As we all know, democracy can be a frightening thing if one is on the receiving end of it. We have all discovered that at


one time or another. But if the House accepts the argument for direct elections, it would be better to go straight to them instead of having a confused interim period in 1985–86, with this sort of bastard appointed body.
The Secretary of State may believe that it would be easier to get the swingeing and destructive cuts in the education budget of £120 million with an appointed body. I think that he is wrong, because it could well be that the appointed body will be Labour controlled. The Secretary of State should have the courage of his convictions, and the good sense to go straight for direct elections. We shall, therefore, vote for the amendment.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I take the debate seriously. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) tried to do his homework thoroughly in preparation. I have to point out a defect in his amendment, but that does not mean that I shall rely on that defect as a total answer. We are dealing with a complicated set of relationships. I want first to react to speeches from Benches other than the Liberal Benches.
The fact that the Government announced that there would be direct elections to ILEA is not a triumph for pressure groups or for democracy, as if the Government needed educating in democracy. Hon. Members forget that the Government deliberately published a consultation paper asking for reactions to their proposals. We did not have to be persuaded by pressure groups. We reacted to the responses to our consultation paper. I want to put that firmly on the record.
ILEA is a special committee of the GLC and entry to ILEA is via the GLC. For elections to ILEA to occur separately from GLC elections, ILEA has to be constituted as an independent body. I do not suggest that we discuss that at great length. I shall not rest the substance of my argument on that, but I must point it out to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
When I announced the Government's decision to move to direct elections I made it plain that we wished to be scrupulous in not anticipating in a paving Bill the contents of the main Bill. We took the view that to put in the paving Bill the exact procedure for replacing ILEA with a body responsible for inner London education would be asking Parliament to take in the paving Bill decisions relevant to the main Bill. That is why we limited ourselves to announcing the main decision about direct elections and did not deal with the interim period.
The result is that we are having a debate on the interim arrangements. I make no complaint about that. Indeed, I shall go as far as to say that the interim arrangements proposed by the Goverment are not totally perfect. —[HON. MEMBERS: "You can say that again.") I can see some of the arguments against them. However, the interim arrangements are nothing like as bad as is projected by Opposition Members. I do not claim that they are perfect.
It is said that the interim arrangements will break the continuity of ILEA's administration. I am not sure whether that is true. I do not lean heavily on this, but the 13 presently appointed members will run through as members until May 1986, and provide a degree of continuity. The work involves continuity. The interim members of ILEA, as proposed by the Government, will in most cases be chosen from those with experience and interest. They will

be obliged by their membership to concentrate on the task of preparing ILEA for its new independent replacement existence. So I reject the charge that the Government scheme wil necessarily break continuity and that the members will necessarily not have a capacity up to the task.

Mr. John Fraser: Has the Secretary of State noticed the odd thing that may happen in the Norwood constituency? The present GLC member, Professor David Smith, who is the leader of the Conservative group on the Inner London education authority, will most certainly lose his place as a result of the interim proposals. It is feasible that the man he defeated in the GLC election, Ted Knight, will take his place. I make no comment one way or the other. Does the Secretary of State regard that as being desirable continuity or a welcome change?

Sir Keith Joseph: I have already agreed that the Government's interim arrangements are not perfect. [Laughter.] Before hon. Members laugh too loudly, they should wait to hear on what I want to base that thesis. I repeat that I take this debate seriously. Surely Opposition Members recognise that I could only recommend to the Committee that this groups of amendments should be regarded as worth introducing into the Bill if I thought that they represented an overwhelming improvement on the Government's interim proposals. I have to tell the Committee that, imperfect as the Government's proposals are, the proposals of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey are not overwhelmingly better, if better at all.
The hon. Member laid almost complacent emphasis on the near perfection of his proposed amendments, but they would involve the curiosity of the direct election of a special committee, being ILEA, of what by then will be an appointed GLC. It is at least a curiosity that he would be creating. Nor do I accept that his proposal would necessarily provide more continuity or more capacity than the interim proposals of the Government.
Even though the hon. Member and his colleagues may intend seriously that the group of amendments should improve the interim arrangements, I do not think that he has made out the case that they are an improvement on the admittedly imperfect interim arrangements proposed by the Government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the curiosity that there is to be a non-elected GLC rather than that there should continue to be, as proposed in the amendments, the tradition of 114 years of having an elected education authority? Is that not the curiosity rather than the other way round?

Sir Keith Joseph: On that proposal the Committee has already come to a decision. The group of amendments that the Committee is discussing does not quarrel with the fact that the GLC in its last year will be composed of appointed members, but it quarrels with the composition of ILEA. It is to that group of amendments that I am addressing myself.
I accept that the amendments have been put forward seriously. However, I cannot accept that in continuity, in capacity or in coherence of membership or background the hon. Member has shown that his proposals would lead to an overwhelmingly better provision than the one he is seeking to replace.

Mr. Dobson: I thought that I understood the interim provisions, but the more that the right hon. Gentleman says, the less I understand. Can he guarantee that no interim arrangement contemplated by the Government will involve decisions in the ILEA being made by representatives of local authorities not within the boundaries of the ILEA?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, I can guarantee that.
I recommend that the Committee rejects this group of amendments, if pressed to a Division. I hope that I have explained that had the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey put forward an overwhelming and perfect solution the Government might have been willing to consider it. He has not done that and I hope that at least my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote down the amendments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We live in hope that one day an hon. Member or a party in this place will come before this earthly legislature with that group of perfect proposals for legislation after which we have been groping for centuries. The tragedy is that I have never yet understood that an electorate is asked to decide whether a proposal is perfect or not. It has only to choose the better option. I am sad to think that the Secretary of State did not answer what I still believe to be considerable, even if not overwhelming, arguments for our proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman was correct to say that because of the special nature of ILEA as a special committee of the GLC, the amendments might have to be amended to deal with their technical deficiencies. However, he was generous enough to accept the point of substance behind the amendment.
The arguments against the proposal are not only not overwhelming; they did not hold up at all. ILEA comprises members of three parties and one independent. It voted overwhelmingly—only three dissented—and all parties agreed that it should continue to be directly elected. It also voted against the rate-capping proposals. The test that the right hon. Gentleman should allow ILEA to undergo next year is that of the ballot box—not least because his original proposal in the White Paper had the bizarre feature, for a Conservative Government, of proposing ILEA as a joint board. It stated:
To underline the fact that the elected representatives nominated to joint boards will represent the interests of the whole of their boroughs and districts, nominations will be required to reflect as closely as practicable the balance of parties on the nominating authority.
In effect, that was a proposal for a proportionately elected ILEA.
I am asking the Government not simply to accept that they have to continue their sudden and magical conversion to proportional representation as proposed in the White Paper, but to back away from that and continue a directly elected authority — and the Secretary of State, politically, has nothing to lose—that would probably end up controlled by the same party that controls it now. It is a Labour-controlled ILEA, and would be so if there were direct elections next year because of the nature of the authorities and their political complexions.
We are not even asking the Government to do the gerrymandering that they must do for the GLC, when they will convert by parliamentary diktat — as the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and

Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said some hours ago—the GLC elected with a Labour majority, albeit a small one, to one with a substantial Conservative majority.
It is quite possible for elections to take place. hi practical terms, it is possible for the legislation to be before us and for arrangements to be made irrespective of what happens on this Bill or next Session on linked legislation.
No business could be successful if there was a complete changeover of those running it on two occasion within 13 months. No nationalised industry would contemplate forming a plan of activity and having a complete shakeout 12 months later. We are talking about something much more important than business. At stake here is the education, the future investment, of our young people
To leave an unelected authority, which will be at the mercy of its officers—or such time as they are able to devote to the task—is a prescription for bureaucrats to run ILEA. That is the complete opposite of the democratic, accountable, principles of the education service as we have known it for 100 years or more and of the other public services. That is giving Whitehall a job which, in Britain, people are elected to do.
Last weekend some of us were excited as we watched the final of the world snooker championship. I gather that the finalist from Tooting, who sadly lost—I say "sadly" because if Jimmy White had won, that would have been for the benefit of snooker—could not until recently read or write. That could, I suppose, be described as a tribute to the still inadequate service provided by ILEA. I am not saying that ILEA has not made substantial progress; just that people deserve the best education service that we can provide. We must make sure that when youngsters leave school they can read and write so that they can get jobs and contribute to the economy.
Politicians, rather than parents, are more interested in the form in which the elections shall take. Parents, however, are vitally interested in the service that is provided, and that is what we are debating tonight. Many hon. Members who represent London constituencies were elected by people voting in schools, with the results finally being declared in schools run by ILEA. In my case, the election result was announced in a Southwark school named after somebody who was perhaps the epitome of education, Geoffrey Chaucer.
The least that we can do is to return the compliment to ILEA and admit that we are not satisfied that the Government have resisted the amendment with an adequate case. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will support the amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 270.

Division No. 287]
[2.30 am


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Boyes, Roland


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (DTrnline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Caborn, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Thomas


Benn, Tony
Clay, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Blair, Anthony
Conlan, Bernard






Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martin, Michael 


Cowans, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan 


Craigen, J. M.
Meacher, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, William 


Cunningham, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


>Deakins, Eric
Nellist, David


Dewar, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon 


Dixon, Donald
O'Brien, William 


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Parry, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


 Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pendry, Tom 


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Penhaligon, David


Ewing, Harry
Pike, Peter


 Faulds, Andrew
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Radice, Giles


Forrester, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foster, Derek
Robertson, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman
Ryman, John 


Golding, John
Sheerman, Barry 


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Haynes, Frank
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Skinner, Dennis 


Hoyle, Douglas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Spearing, Nigel 


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stott, Roger 


Janner, Hon Greville
Strang, Gavin 


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Straw, Jack


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wallace, James 


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wareing, Robert


Litherland, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Winnick, David 


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McDonald, Dr Oonagh



McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Paddy Ashdown.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aitken, Jonathan
Brinton, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Amess, David
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Arnold, Tom
Browne, John


Ashby, David
Bruinvels, Peter 


Aspinwall, Jack
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Buck, Sir Antony 


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Budgen, Nick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bulmer, Esmond 


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John 


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Hon Adam


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael 


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William 


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Body, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bottomley, Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cockeram, Eric 


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Colvin, Michael 


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Simon 


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cope, John





Corrie, John
Knowles, Michael 


Couchman, James
Lamont, Norman 


Cranborne, Viscount
Lang, Ian


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael 


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawler, Geoffrey 


Dicks, Terry
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark 


Dover, Den
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lightbown, David 


Dunn, Robert
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael 


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lyell, Nicholas 


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCrea, Rev William


Fallon, Michael
McCurley, Mrs Anna 


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil 


Favell, Anthony
MacGregor, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fletcher, Alexander
Maclean, David John 


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Major, John


Forth, Eric
Malins, Humfrey 


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Malone, Gerald 


Fox, Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Marlow, Antony


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Galley, Roy
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mayhew, Sir Patrick 


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Merchant, Piers


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon C.


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Harvey, Robert
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Neubert, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Tony


Hayes, J.
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Normanton, Tom


Heddle, John
Norris, Steven


Henderson, Barry
Oppenheim, Philip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hickmet, Richard
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hind, Kenneth
Parris, Matthew 


Hirst, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hooson, Tom
Porter, Barry


Hordern, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Michael
Powley, John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Raffan, Keith


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rhodes James, Robert


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
 Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
 Roe, Mrs Marion 


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
 Rowe, Andrew 


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir
 Rumbold, Mrs Angela 


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
 Ryder, Richard 


Key, Robert
 Sackville, Hon Thomas 


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
 Sayeed, Jonathan 


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
 Scott, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
 Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)






Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Trippier, David


Silvester, Fred
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speller, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spencer, Derek
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Squire, Robin
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanley, John
Watson, John


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wheeler, John 


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Woodcock, Michael


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Terlezki, Stefan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. David Hunt and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire, South-East): Would you be prepared, Mr. Walker, to group amendment No. 13 with amendments Nos. 14 to 17 which we are about to discuss? I suggest that that would save the time of the Committee because amendment No. 13 is consequential upon amendments Nos. 14 to 17, if any of them were carried. It would seem to me sensible to discuss them together. Would that be possible?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): I am afraid that it is not possible to group them as the right hon. Member suggests, but if he wishes to withdraw the amendment it would be in order for him to refer to it in the debate on the group of amendments headed by amendment No. 14.

Mr. Pym: I would not wish to withdraw the amendment, but I am prepared not to move it at this stage and to come back to it, if appropriate, at a later stage in the Bill.

The Chairman: That would be helpful. In which case we move to the next group of amendments.

Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington): I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (2) to (5) and add—
'The councillors of the Greater London Council and the councillors for a metropolitan county as on 1st May 1985 shall continue in office as councillor until 1st April 1986.'.

The Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to consider the following amendments. No. 15, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert
'currently holding office shall remain in office until 1st April 1986.'
Amendment No. 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Silvester: I speak as one who is wholly in favour of the Government's policy in respect of the abolition of the metropolitan counties. I believe in unitary authorities

and also that the nearer we get to them, even in the area of ILEA, the sooner we are likely to have better government.
I also believe that it would be foolish to have elections next May to cover a period of 11 months. It would be wasteful and unnecessary, and it would be imposing a great deal on people who might be standing to ask them to stand for the purpose of tidying up and transferring duties.
Therefore, you would think, Mr. Walker, that I would be happy, but I am afraid I am not, because the Bill makes provision for those 11 months in a way that I find unacceptable.
The Government have considered two options. The first has been to prolong the life of the existing councils and the second to hand over to the successor boroughs. It has been said to me that neither option is more democratic than the other and that there is therefore nothing to get steamed up about.
Let us examine that proposition. I suggest that we can do it by asking ourselves, particularly on the Conservative Benches, two questions. The first is, "Are we really handing over to the successor authorities?" The answer to that question of course is no. We are indulging in a kind of sleight of hand.
The interim council will have all the existing functions of the MCCs and the GLC. They will be multi-purpose bodies. As I understand it, the successor bodies are to be joint bodies, almost wholly single purpose, in a form that is yet to be worked out, and on which consultations are still proceeding. Some of the functions are to be taken over by the Arts Council, some will be passed over to functions in Ministries. Therefore, it is not true to say that we are handing over to the successor authorities. In effect, we are handing over to a body that in all functions is similar to the MCCs or the GLC, but which is different in composition. In the Bill, we are not handing over to the successsor authorities, but changing their composition.
2.45 am
The second question that Conservative Members should ask themselves is whether we would be doing this if all the MCCs were Conservative. The answer to that question is no. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that that is the answer. In some of the speeches from our Front Bench we have almost admitted as much, as I shall show. The position is a bit worse than that. We are mesmerised by the GLC, but we are also dealing with the metropolitan counties. In the new system, all of those, with the exception of the GLC, will be controlled by the party that opposes us.
There is no reason to suppose that the people appointed by the Labour district councils will be any less trouble to us than the people appointed already as Labour members of the MCCs. The Labour Left is just as capable of creating disruption and chaos through the new method as it is through the old. It is only in the GLC that the political colour will change. If we are honest with ourselves, the purpose of the Bill is to change the political complexion of the GLC. That is the greatest compliment that we can pay to Livingstone, and an abandonment of the standards that we should set for ourselves.
We are abandoning Conservative standards. I am one of those who thinks that too often in the House we talk about principles. I am sceptical about them. When people talk about them, I look for interests, and I tire easily as


pomposities ricochet from one side of the House to the other. I would not say that my right hon. Friends are less principled than I, but sometimes the still small voice should make us think that something more than interest is at stake. We should be particularly careful when we are given an answer about bureaucratic convenience or, even worse, as has been advanced in the case, that some people will rigorously oppose us. We cannot be too careful about the way that our actions treat the constitution.
All my political life has been in big city politics, and I know how awful the Left is. I am not so naive as to believe that we should treat them as though we are going out for a nice game of cricket. By all means, we have to be prepared to prevent abuses. If more powers are needed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should come to ask for them, and the main part of the Bill provides him with additional powers. He will remember that he already has massive powers on rates, capital expenditure and so on, with which he can control the MCCs.
If my right hon. Friend says that he wants more powers, he should come and define what he means. To ask for additional power to hold in readiness in case of abuse by the metropolitan counties is different from changing the rules to give oneself power, not in response to some illegal act, or to redress some known grievance, but in response to a threat, to merely anticipated evil, and is a dangerous path to follow.
It has been suggested to me, especially in view of the lateness of the hour, that that does not matter and that it is trivial in relation to the great problems that we face. It is suggested that we shall, in the end, abolish the metropolitan county councils; surely we should not flinch from willing the means to do so. I wish that that were so. On both counts, I do not think that the issue is that simple.
Let us take the question of the means and the end. I am prepared to defend and support the policy on the metropolitan counties and I believe that that opportunity will come in the next Session. Government will be better for their abolition, and democracy will be stronger. Let us defend it boldly. It does not need, nor is it helped by having, so poor a midwife as this proposal. I believe that the Bill detracts from our policy and tarnishes it. We spend half our time defending the Bill instead of upholding the policy. I believe that prolonging the existence of the councils for the interim period of 11 months is a well understood procedure. It has been used before; it is natural and easily defensible. So far as I can see, in talking to people generally, rather than those who are deeply committed to the councils, it arouses very little opposition.
We have nothing to gain by adopting the alternative route that is set out in the Bill. If my right hon. Friend thinks that the passage of the Bill will do away with the opportunity for the Left to do mischief, I am afraid that he will soon be disillusioned. There is an infinite variety of ways in which that mischief will be caused and we shall have to fight it on the wrong grounds. We shall forfeit the strong and secure ground of simply allowing the existing councils to continue for that period, and we shall be open to the charge that we do not come to the fight with clean hands.
The other matter is not so trivial as it appears at first glance. We can all quote examples of how bad other parties and Governments have been in the past. Frankly,

I do not give a fig for them. I do not care for Livingstone and his lot, nor for the Left on other councils. I want us to adopt our own standards, not theirs. If our enemies think that it is quixotic and foolish to do so, then so be it. The difference in standards is nowadays the essence of many of the political battles.
Do not let us fall for the exaggerated nonsense that anybody's democratic rights are being infringed significantly by the Bill; but something even more important is being infringed. Conservatives believe that a well ordered nation is governed according to a balance of power that is maintained according to clearly defined rules. If we evade them, even though we have the power to do so, we shall later pay the penalty.
The Secretary of State is reputed to have said—if he did not, I could well imagine that the arguments would have gone this way—that the balance of the argument between the Bill and my amendment are very narrow. It is certainly true that a change of the sort that I am suggesting would not attack the heart of the Government's policy, but it would get it off to a much better start and I urge my right hon. Friend to accept the amendment.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I found the arguments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), very persuasive and powerful, not least because of the calm way in which they were put to the Committee.
I want to make it clear that alliance Members regard the proposals as very much second best, without elections in 1985. To that extent, the provision is acknowledged as a fall-back position. If the Bill were to fall at Third Reading, this proposal would fall with it, and no one would be more pleased than I would be. If we are to have the Bill, we should have some sort of position that is sustainable in argument and logic and which endeavours to maintain the continuity and principles dealt with so persuasively by the hon. Member for Withington.
I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State in an interview on Radio 4 recently blandly state that elections have been abolished on a number of occasions before. The implication was that there were precedents for what was being done in the Bill, that therefore there should be no worry, and that the Bill was not so startling and unconstitutional as was being presented. If elections have been abandoned in the past, as they manifestly have, is there a single case in which elections have been abandoned so as to put in power another group of people rather than continuing the term of office of existing councillors until there was a further election for a new authority? That is the case with which we are dealing now, not whether in the past there has been an abandonment of elections for some other purpose.
It is true that when the GLC was formed, indeed when the metropolitan counties were formed, the terms of office of the existing members of the previous authority were continued until the new authority took over. Again, that is common ground on both sides of the Committee. I am not aware of any incidents where elections have been suspended or abandoned or have not taken place so that the existing authorities could be replaced by further appointed individuals.
Previous elections for the bodies which will appoint to the interim councils if the Bill is enacted in its present form were not for the metropolitan counties or the GLC, but for the district authorities. I suspect that in a great many cases


the individual members who put themselves forward, and indeed the parties which selected them, had regard to the kind of authority that they were selecting them for. The interests of those individuals were no doubt of some concern as to their propriety and appropriateness for the particular authority to which they were going. They may have had an interest in the services to be done by one or the other. They may have had an interest in transportation for the county. They may have had an interest in social services for the district. But in the case that we are now putting forward in the Bill it appears that, whether or not they were concerned about those individual functions, they are now to be thrust on to an authority for which they are not candidates previously.
A further minor point attached to that is the fact that in some cases the existence of two-tier government—the GLC and county councils — was quite important to individuals who would otherwise be statute barred. I always thought that it was sad that there are many people in our society who, when there is only one tier of local government, are thereby barred from serving on it because they are employees of that local authority. I wonder what the position would be of those individuals who might be put forward for the interim councils from the district councils and the London boroughs, who might be statute barred and be unable to stand by law. Are they now to be permitted to be members of those authorities?
The hon. Member for Withington used the words "a sleight of hand". It is a highly inappropriate way to go about the government of these huge areas to achieve a change of control without the democratic process taking place. If one cannot effect by the ballot box the kind of principles and policies one puts forward, it is illegitimate to achieve that change by appointment from the House.
Despite the fact that it is written into the Bill that there should be proportionality between parties, in a great many cases the number of members to be so appointed from the district is not sufficient to achieve that proportionality where three parties are represented on the district councils. It is even possible — for instance, in the case of Calderdale in west Yorkshire—that the party in office in a local authority is the third party in size. It is conceivable that that would not necessarily be represented on the new authority. In such situations it is bizarre to suggest that new bodies will be representative of the political opinions of the people who have cast their votes in recent elections.
I also suspect that the Secretary of State may say that there is a great fear in his mind that the existing local authorities would behave irresponsibly if they were given one more year of existence. I am not convinced by that suggestion, for two reasons. First, those local authorities are so anxious not only to remain in existence but to make the case for their future existence if the balance of power in the House were to change that they would not go out of their way to behave irresponsibly in that final year.
The Government have two weapons to inhibit misbehaviour in that final year. They have, alas, their rate-capping proposals. There is also the provision which enables them to insist that the local authorities furnish the Secretary of State with considerable detail about their affairs. With those two draconian powers in existing legislation, if the Secretary of State does not have enough power to control the authorities in their final year he has wasted his time in enacting those provisions in the past.

3 am

Dr. Hampson: How does the Secretary of State stop what we are already seeing in the GLC, where the council uses its ratepayers' money and resources to buy assets from the boroughs and give a large bonanza to the boroughs, knowing that when abolition comes those assets automatically revert back to the boroughs and they pay nothing for them?

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) say that. The prospect of execution concentrates the mind immensely. If the hon. Gentleman believes that these local authorities will quietly disappear, will not fight for their existence and will not find legitimate ways in which they can maintain those assets that they have had before, I am surprised by his naivety. It amazes me that authorities have not gone out of their way to behave in an underhand manner. They have acted openly with a view to maintaining those services for the future. If the Government bring forward draconian policies on financial control and inhibition of local authorities, I am not surprised that local authorities use all their astuteness to safeguard their services and assets.
I accept that the Government had a dilemma. They were trying to produce proposals to deal with what they regarded as the menace of Mr. Ken Livingstone and others in the metropolitan areas. If they had continued the existing authorities over the final year, they would have produced a Ken Livingstone preservation Bill. I can understand the psychological problem of the Secretary of State but, sadly, because of the personalities involved and because of the depth of the campaign being conducted by the leaders of those authorities, it in no way excuses a bad principle being enacted into bad law. For that reason, I shall have great pleasure in supporting the amendments.

Mr. Pym: As the Committee knows, I am opposed to the concept and principle of the Bill. It is premature, unnecessary and an embarrassing waste of parliamentary time. Because I take that view, it follows that I see little scope for improving it. There it little scope for amendments which will make it better. In my view, the whole Bill should be thrown out.
Despite that, I thought that two groups of amendments could have some effect. The first was the first group that we discussed, which attempted to constrain the powers of the Secretary of State to activate the Bill. The second is this group, which relates to the interim arrangements for the proposed reform. The amendments do not relate to the substance of abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties. They deal with the arrangements which are to be put into effect to carry us from the present position to the new state of affairs coming into force, whatever it is and whenever that is — we do not yet know. The amendments call for a stay of execution until April 1986, and I support entirely the admirable speech that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). The purpose is to keep the present councillors in office for a further year to give the Government a breathing space to prepare their proposals and develop them much more fully before introducing their main Bill. I should have thought that as each day goes by, and as each speech in the debate is made, the need for that extra time becomes ever more apparent.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that to achieve this objective we must have


legislation. We must legislate to postpone the elections. However, the legislation to keep the existing councillors on the metropolitan counties and the GLC in office has been done before, and is not nearly as controversial as what is proposed here. The controversy here is the proposal to remove the elected representatives of those authorities and to substitute appointed bodies.
It is also true, as my right hon. Friend said, that those appointed bodies are elected, but they are elected for a different purpose. From the point of view of fulfilling the responsibilities now fulfilled by the metropolitan counties and the GLC, they are not, of course, elected. Therefore, they will be quasi-quangos, and this in my view is unprecedented. I am afraid that the gap between my right hon. Friend and myself on that point is as long as it ever was. To make matters much worse, in making this extraordinary change it seems highly likely that in some cases the political complexions of the appointed bodies will change. That is completely unacceptable and breaks the well-accepted rules of our constitutional practice.
In this whole reform the Government are showing too much haste, in the sense that they gave this great reform too little forethought before they rushed into it. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends are impatient for this reform, but all our experience shows that when making such changes in local government one needs to proceed in a careful and considered way. The Secretary of State today made great claim about the potential savings as a result of this measure. Some of us have been in the House when reforms were made to local government, and all sorts of claims about savings for the ratepayer were made. In every case the result was to increase the cost, not reduce it. It is reasonable for the Secretary of State to claim that there will be savings to ratepayers, but many of us wish to see the analysis and to challenge some conclusions.
Our experience in the 1963 and 1972 Acts shows how necessary it is to give much thought before any change is made. It is fashionable today to criticise both Acts. That criticism may be fair and justified, or it may not, but at any rate those changes were made by the House of Commons after much forethought and preparation. The main Bill, which we are told will be introduced next Session, is likely to be far worse than anything that went before unless the Government stop their headlong rush into what appears like the first solution that comes into their head. I urge them to take more time about such an important change.
My third point relates to the handling of the change. We have had no debate in the House on the broad strategy of the reform. We have received information about the new proposals bit by bit, some on Second Reading, and some in today's Hansard in a written answer. I wish that the Government would come forward with their properly considered proposals in an orderly way —in a White Paper or whatever—and give the House the opportunity to hear their case and the reasons for it, and allow the House to argue that and to put forward alternatives. There must be general consideration of the entire reform before more legislation is introduced.
My fourth point is to urge upon the Government the continuation of the existing councils and their existing representatives, as proposed in the amendments. There is, after all, a proper democratic base for this. They have been elected for the responsibilities that have to be carried out

in the interim period. It is much more sensible to let those people who know about it continue for a further year or 11 months until the new arrangements are properly in place.
There has been a great deal of talk about the desirability of removing councils that are very Left wing in their views. That is a perfectly legitimate aim, but the only legitimate way to remove them is through the ballot box, and not by any other means. All hon. Members like to claim to be democrats, but I must say that I find the proposals in the Bill extraordinary undemocratic. By the device that I suggest, I think that there will be the minimum of disruption. I am sure that, when we come to that point in the Bill, there will be a great deal of argument and discussion about the extraordinary arrangements that are proposed in the Bill, and the difficulties and strains to which they are likely to give rise. To continue the existing councillors for a further year will give rise to none of that hassle. I think that it will be considered to be quite reasonable and logical, and that that is what we ought to do.
It would also have the advantage of giving the Government more time. They have imposed upon themselves, for reasons that I do not entirely understand, a time limit for putting the reform in place so that it is active in 1986. I do not see the necessity for that. If the reform would be much more widely accepted, and, therefore, less controversial, and if it would be more thought out, and people would be more prepared for it, surely 1987 would be a better date to choose than 1986. For those reasons, I think that the amendments now proposed would be extremely helpful in making the main Bill as proposed less unacceptable.
Finally, I wish to make a point That I know has been made already in the debate. Whatever mandate the Government may think they have, and whatever view one takes about a mandate—and I think that one ought to take a rather reserved view about that theory—there is certainly no mandate for the Bill. No hon. Member was elected to the House on the basis that the democratic processes belonging to these authorities were suddenly to be uprooted in this extraordinary way. That is my fundamental objection to the Bill. However, I think that it would be made slightly less bad, and slightly more acceptable, if the sense of the amendments now before the Committee were carried, and if the Government had more time in which to work out what they will do for the future.

Mr. Tony Banks: I endorse the sentiments that have been expressed by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), and, indeed, by his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), although in the latter case I should have preferred it if the hon. Gentleman had not referred to "Livingstone and his crowd", but had shown a certain amount of respect for the leader of the largest local authority in the country. However, I realise that manners at any time are in short supply on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Patrick Ground (Feltham and Heston): Is that a shirt or a tattoo?

Mr. Banks: At least I have a chest, which is more than the hon. Gentleman has.
While I can applaud and sympathise with the sentiments, I am unable to support the amendment. I


recognise its intention, but there can be no acceptable substitute for the democratic elections that were due to be held in May 1985. The extension of a period of office for existing councillors has many precedents. Indeed, when I was a member of the Greater London council between 1973 and 1977, the life of that administration was extended by a year to bring it into line with the metropolitan county councils. Thus there is a precedent. In that case, of course, it depended on the continuation of that body, which is not the present case.
For once in the course of the debate on the Bill, I will conceivably join hands across the Dispatch Box with the Government Front Bench, while my sentiments are entirely with the Conservative Members who are desperately trying to improve what I believe is an unimprovable measure. The Government were clearly, unwilling to go along with that in their original proposals because of the embarrassment of being accused of having vilified Mr. Livingstone and his administration only to come up with a proposal to extend the life of that administration by a further year. I can well imagine the red faces of Conservative Members and the sort of questioning that they might face from their Conservative associations. Those associations would have wondered why, if everything they read in the newspapers and everything that Ministers said was true, the Government should then extend the life of that accursed administration at county hall for a further year.
3.15 am
It was also argued that those administrations, and the so called Left-wing that Conservative Members are apparently so concerned about, would make trouble. I can put hon. Members minds at rest immediately. No self-respecting Left-winger on a metropolitan county council or on the GLC would accept such a Judas price from Ministers. As a sitting member of the GLC there is no way that I would he prepared to go on for a further year after May 1985. What would my function as a member of the GLC be? It would be to carry out the diktats of Marsham street and Ministers in order to prepare the way for the abolition of the GLC, which we have fought against.
The amendment would be asking those of us at county hall to go out under a sentence of death and to co-operate with the hangman in preparing ourselves for that death. No one is going to give me a shovel and tell me to go out to dig my grave and stand by it while I am shot. Under the circumstances, although I accept and understand what some Conservative Members are trying to do, I am sure that I speak for the overwhelming majority of Labour members on the GLC when I say that what is proposed is totally unacceptable. If the measure were carried, we would just stand down in May 1985. We are not prepared to go on for another year as stooges of Marsham street and to carry out what the Ministers want us to do. Therefore, I am sorry, but we cannot go along with the proposal, although we might endorse the sentiments behind it.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: What the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has just said helps our case for the amendment. If he wants to walk out of county hall should we have given the GLC another 11 months, Conservative councillors will at least be in control legitimately. The amendment suggests that the path along which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is treading will put the Conservative party in control for that 11 months illegitimately. I fully support

what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) so clearly and effectively said in proposing the amendment. The aim of the amendment is that we should seek to be legitimate and not illegitimate.
Those who have been Members of the House for as long as I have will appreciate that we have sometimes been whipped into voting in favour of a measure that is the exact opposite of something that we were whipped into voting for in a previous Parliament. In other words, we are sometimes asked to stand on our heads. In the 1970 Parliament we introduced the metropolitan councils and now we are being asked to support doing away with them.
I am rather accident prone in local government, although I am not sure that I am as accident prone as the Secretary of State will be in the next few months. I served on the Middlesex county council in my first elected job after the war when I came out of the RAF intending to put the country right. I have been trying to put the country right ever since, with limited success. In 1962 the Government did away with the Middlesex county council. They then also tried to do away with the County of Rutland which I represented, until recently, for 24 years. We won the battle in 1962 and Rutland stood on its own until 1972 when I failed to persuade the Government to retain it.
So, I am accident prone, in local government, but I have never stood as a member of the Greater London council. I was not enthusiastic in 1972 about the measures that we proposed for local government because I was affected by them in Rutland. I was whipped then and today I am being whipped in the opposite direction. Today I propose to support the amendment.
At the time, I thought that the 1972 proposals were an attempt by the Ministry and the big battalions in local government to find better jobs for the boys—they did that—and to provide better salaries. They did that too. We were told that the proposals would save money. In the event, the salary and other bills connected with reorganisation increased.
The Minister will spell out what he will save on this. He should halve the figure and if he waits for a few more years he will lose even that half. I do not think that in the end we shall save anything.
I accept that the proposal was in our manifesto, even though I had reservations about it. But I want to keep our good conscience as a party. 1 want to retain the belief of others that we believe in democracy. The Government can do that by accepting the amendment. If my right hon. Friend does not accept the amendment, we shall he charged with gerrymandering. We shall be charged with handing over the GLC for 11 months to an authority which is not representative of the present GLC but, on the figures available about likely nominees, to a Conservative body. It will be a temporary quango, but it will be of our creation and will not be representative of the electorate.
People would be told that we had manipulated the authority. The Opposition would say, as indeed they already have, that we had manipulated that authority. Many people would believe that we had manipulated. All those uninformed about politics or indifferent to politics except for the occasional vote would accept the message that we had manipulated.
I suppose that the Minister can put his hand on his heart and say, "We have not manipulated it. That is just the way it worked out. We have to do it that way because it will


not work any other way." If we are likely to be charged with manipulation, the Minister and his Department should find another way.
We will have put up with the Labour party running the GLC for the four years that they will have been in office by the time the elections are due. We can surely put up with it for another 11 months. It has been shown that there are powers in the Bill to prevent abuse. The Minister can take other powers himself. Under the rate-capping legislation at present being considered in another place the Government will have power to prevent abuse.
If Ken Livingstone continues on his eccentric and extreme path he can be contained. In any case, if he behaves eccentrically, that will damage the Labour party more than the Government. Indeed, in a few months from now the Government may be pleased that an eccentric Ken Livingstone is doing things that may boost their support in the country on the basis that people will say that it is better to have the devil they know than Mr. Livingstone or those who follow him.
It is not impossible for my right hon. Friend to accept the amendment. Yesterday in the House of Lords the Government laid an amendment to the Rates Bill that arose out of representations that we made here and on which my right hon. Friend promised to do something. That amendment will be helpful to counties that were threatened with rate capping even though they had not been extravagant.
There is a limit to the concessions that my right hon. Friend should make to the House of Lords. He should make concessions to this place. When we propose reasonable amendments, he should make concessions here and not wait to do so in the House of Lords. If he does not accept this amendment, I believe that something similar will be proposed in the House of Lords and the Government will have to accept it. Lets have it now.

Dr. David Clark: I shall not detain the Committee long because many of my points have been made tellingly by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee. It is no secret that we find many parts of the Bill repugnant. We find it ill-timed, ill-conceived and ill-advised, but in particular we find repugnant that part of the Bill which seeks to abolish the 1985 elections and to replace councillors by appointed personnel. That theme has come up time and time again and it is completely unprecedented in the United Kingdom. It is fundamentally undemocratic to abolish the elections in advance of this sovereign Parliament taking a decision on the matter and, indeed, in advance of Parliament even seeing the Bill that the Secretary of State has promised to introduce. It would be preferable to hold the elections.
3.30 am
I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) about people accusing the Government of manipulating. Of course they will be accused of that because they are the democratic processes. I do not know whether the Secretary of State understands this, but it is as undemocratic to fiddle with the structure of local government as it is to gerrymander the electorate. The right hon. Gentleman is manipulating the electorate. I ask him the question that has been asked time and time again—how can he justify a Labour-elected GLC being turned into a Tory-run quango? It is preposterous.
Given the fact that the right hon. Gentleman intends to proceed with the legislation—to which we are opposed —what do we do if he manages to persuade and whip his hacks into supporting him in the Lobby? We must think of what is good for the governance of the metropolitan counties. That is what we are charged with and what we want to achieve. The official Opposition see this set of amendments very much as second best, but preferable to the establishment of a quango to look after the affairs of the citizens of the metropolitan counties. It is more preferable for democratically elected councillors to run the service than to have appointed personnel. No genuine democrat could disagree with that.
This set of amendments has a practical application that has not been fully developed. The key point is that the deferral of the 1985 elections would be a no-lose position for the Government and the electorate in the metropolitan areas. It would retain the expertise and experience during those 11 months. Those appointed to the quango would not have the expertise or experience in running the services. It does not make for good management or administration to have such people running the services. It would be much better to have the councillors originally elected to do the job continuing to do it.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not imagine for a moment that he is certain to get his substantive Bill through the House. I hope that this Parliament, if he brings in a Bill that we do not like, is sovereign enough to reject it. If that Bill is rejected, the Secretary of State must go through the procedure of abolishing his quangos and so on. It would be so much easier if elected councillors continued for a further year. Nothing would be lost and the election could take place as usual.
The Government's proposals to establish an interim board, which would last for only 11 months, mean that in a three-year period the administration of the metropolitan areas would have three different structures—one year it would have the democratically elected councillors, the next year it would have the council-appointed quango and third year would see the permanent arrangement. That is not the most sensible way to run any organisation.
I recall all the promises that were made in the 1970 Parliament. We were told how the country and ratepayers would be saved money, but things did not work out that way. What the Government are proposing will not even begin to meet the dreams of the Secretary of State, and that is why—although, as I say, it is very much second best—we urge support for the amendment.

Dr. Hampson: With respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), we are not discussing the rights and wrongs of abolition. Coming from a metropolitan county, I am strongly in favour of it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) is against it. Nor are we discussing the costs involved.
The excellence of the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) prompted me to speak. The issue is that my right hon. Friend, in deciding to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC, had a simple choice to make. Are the successors of the existing bodies to be those who are currently in those bodies and who will cease to be in them—the outs, so to speak—or will the successors be those who will be the inheritors, those who are already in the system?
The precedents show that one carries on for the extra year with those who will be out, but this is creating a new precedent for a new situation. This is new in the sense that there is no immediate successor body. According to precedent, most of those who will carry on for the extra year will be the very councillors who will be elected for the successor bodies. That happened when moving from the old to the new county councils in 1974.
In the present circumstances, we are faced with the fact that the existing county councillors, or GLC councillors, will end up with nothing. We are taking away their power base, and that is a world of difference. The arguments boil down to two. The object of the proposal is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Withington said, to change control of the GLC. It is totally wrong to levy the charge at my right hon. Friend that his object is to do that.
With respect to him and his ministerial team, I should have thought that that was the biggest embarrassment that they faced—the fact that power in the GLC is changing —and while that is not the object, it seems logical to say that it is helpful, for ease of transition, that those who will inherit these functions should operate during the period of transition, rather than have a fag-end administration. I know of no instance in this country or, speaking as an American historian, of an example from United States administrations, where a fag-end administration could be relied on to be responsible.
We should face in these circumstances probably the biggest asset-stripping operation we have ever seen in public life in this country. We should have a group of people, whether in the metropolitan counties or in the GLC, who would not have a function after the Bill was enacted, who had huge assets at their disposal and who would seek the extra year, if they were given it, to make sure that those assets were transferred to their party political friends at the borough or district level.
Whatever the constitutional principles, that is the reality with which the Secretary of State must deal. It seems perfectly valid, therefore, for us to be asked to act in accordance with reality, providing on the one hand for the minimum disruption by ensuring that those who will succeed continue on through the transitional period and, on the other, to prevent one of the biggest abuses of political power that could possibly occur.

Mr. Benyon: This is probably the most important debate that will take place during our consideration of the Bill and it is a tragedy that we must discuss it at this ridiculous hour. However, I make no excuse for delaying the Committee for a few minutes to make it clear how much I support the amendment.
As I said earlier in an intervention, I do not challenge the right of Parliament to change the structure of local government. Nor do I challenge the contention that it is necessary to postpone the elections in order to do so, but it is that aspect of the Government's proposals that sticks in the gullet of so many, who consider that it is an undemocratic way of proceeding.
Conditions change and it is impossible to maintain the structure and powers of local government in some fossilised state. In November there will be an argument about whether the Government's proposals are better than the present position or whether there is an alternative that is better still. I make no comment on the proposals or on the enormous speculation that surrounds them. It is all speculation and the kindest thing to say is that the case is

not proven. If the Government are persuaded that they will produce better local government, I shall support their proposals when the time comes.
We are discussing whether the councils should remain in control for the extra year, in other words, the arrangements for the interim. Should the existing councils continue for the extra year in accordance with precedent or should they be replaced? I am depressed because I am conscious of the similarities between the devolution proposals of the Labour Government and the proposals that are now being made. Both sets of proposals were introduced with the best of intentions and in this instance my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that they will reduce the rate burden. I am certain that as the discussion proceeds the situation will become more and more difficult and the problems will become more and more evident.
If we do what is proposed in the Bill, we shall embark on a recipe for inefficiency for the interim year. I take up the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), which was answered earlier in our proceedings by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). My right hon. and learned Friend said that the argument could be easily catered for by the introduction of a small enabling Bill, which would avoid the irresponsible actions that would take place during the final year, such as the sale or purchase of assets, the appointment or dismissal of staff or the implementation of section 137 powers.
By replacing the elected body with an indirectly elected body we are changing the political composition of the council, and that is where the crunch comes. I know that the Opposition are making a great deal of this proposed legislation but it is really on the Government Benches that the decision lies. The Opposition can only talk; we can act. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the Government's proposals are right, and the answer must be no.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) has said about this being one of the most important debates that we shall have on the Bill. It is interesting to recognise that those who have spoken in it have taken different views on the merits of the abolition proposal and the method Mat we are adopting to implement it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) made- it clear in a quiet but impressive speech that he firmly supports the main proposal of abolishing the metropolitan councils and the GLC. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), he agrees that we should legislate to postpone the elections. I am grateful for that, because it is important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East is unhappier on a wider range of grounds. He believes that we are pursuing this course with too much haste, and for that reason we run the risk of not getting it right.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made it clear that he could not support the amendments because he passionately felt that the GLC should be retained and elections should occur next year. He believes that those aims ate not in any way consistent with the amendments.
3.45 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes regards the whole case as not proven and remains to be convinced that there is a case for abolishing the upper tier councils in the metropolitan areas.
A number of speeches were made on the amendments, most in support, but from differing standpoints. The main point to emerge from the debate is that we face a clear choice. I do not entirely disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). It is an unprecedented choice for an unprecedented case. That point is becoming clear as the debate proceeds. There are precedents for cancelling elections, but there is no precedent— I accept this point — for entrusting the interim council to the successor council. There is no precedent for having the successor councils in existence from the moment the whole process starts.
The argument of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was unconvincing. He believes that, if the main Bill fails, somehow it will be easier to restore elections and return to the previous pattern if the existing councils have run on than if the interim councils consist, as the Bill states, of councillors nominated by the successor councils. I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman's ability, but I do not believe that his argument carries any weight.
This is a paving Bill. If the main Bill fails, the status quo will be restored. If that happens on Second Reading, the commencement order will never be laid and the elections will occur. If the commencement order has been laid, the elections will be suspended. Depending on the date—we had to deal with that point when considering the other changes to electoral law that might be necessary —the elections will be reinstated, and the councils will again consist of directly elected members.
It does not make the slightest difference whether we have accepted the Bill's proposals on nominated councillors or whether the existing councils have run on. The hon. Member for South Shields had in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—many of those councillors will not have served if the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington is carried.
Granted that we are interfering perfectly legitimately —I recognise that many Opposition Members do not accept this point, but many of my hon. Friends do—in the election pattern, is our proposed solution more democratic than the alternative pressed upon us? My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) used the word "manipulation". Is that so unacceptable that it must be changed?
The second issue is the practical one of deciding which of the two options is likely to prove the most practical solution and likely to lead to the most successful and smoothest transition. Those are the two questions to which we must address ourselves.
I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Withington, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshre, South-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding, who have argued that the proposal contained in the Bill is undemocratic whereas their proposal in more democratic. I do not believe that the argument is nearly as clear—cut as my right hon. and hon. Friends suggested.

Mr. Flannery: Democracy is democracy.

Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, if I may develop the point, in either case this House would be substituting for the interim period, councillors who would otherwise have been elected in the elections that we shall be suspending. In the case suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington the existing councillors would be asked to continue to serve for a further 11 months. In effect, they would be put there by this House.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made it clear that that would be unacceptable and that he would have no mandate for a fifth year. He and many of his friends on the GLC would not serve because they would regard that process as undemocratic. Mr. Livingstone and others are on record as having said that they would not serve because they would regard it as undemocratic.
One choice is councillors put in to serve by fiat of the House. The other is to give the existing elected councils the opportunity to nominate from among their own number those who will serve in the interim period. Both are, in a sense, substituted councillors for the interim period, but that is inherent in the pattern of cancelling the elections and having an interim council. The question is whether one is more democratic than the other.
I do not see that the argument is anything like as clear-cut as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. After all, the existing GLC and metropolitan councillors were elected in 1981 and will have served for four years, and the suggestion is that they should carry on and serve for a fifth year. None of the borough and district councillors will have been elected before 1982 and some of them in the metropolitan districts a good deal more recently.

Mr. Wareing: But they were elected for an entirely different purpose.

Mr. Jenkin: I understand the point that is made, but, with respect, I am not sure how much weight it should carry. Perhaps I can deal with the point in a moment.
We should be offering elected councils the opportunity to nominate from among their own number those who would serve during the interim period. I do not see that that is any less democratic than the fiat of the House seeking to continue in office councillors whose terms has already elapsed.
The point was made, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has just repeated it, that those borough and district councillors were elected for a different purpose. Technically, of course, that is right. I should not deny that for one moment, but surely all of us who have been members of local authorities recognise that when we stand for the local authority many of us find ourselves serving on committees and outside bodies that we did not have the remotest idea even existed when we stood for election.
This is perhaps a minor example, but when I was first a borough councillor I found myself appointed to serve on the metropolitan district committee of the North Thames Gas consultative council.

Mr. Peter Snape: The pinnacle of a glittering career.

Mr. Jenkin: One has to start somewhere. My point is that councillors are frequently asked to undertake tasks that may not have been remotely in the contemplation either of the electorate that elected them or themselves when they sought election. For such a short period, in the


special case of a local government Bill, we should not attach too much weight to the argument that borough councils were elected to run different services. I shall come to the practical argument in a moment.

Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps there should be elections for the North Thames gas consultative council as well. Is not the right hon. Gentleman opposing the need to have elections next year in what he calls the interim year because he fears that his party will be slaughtered at the polls, and the polls would be seen as a referendum on the Government's legislation?

Mr. Jenkin: We touched on the subject of elections in an earlier debate, and the argument against that is clear. When a local government reorganisation is in progress and the Bill is before the House, it is difficult to see how such elections could sensibly be held, or what the issues would be
I understand that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and his hon. Friends reject that argument, and want the elections to take place, but that is because they are against the main substance of the Bill. The House will, I hope, pass that main substance, whereupon, it is right that the elections should be suspended. I return to the question of, if and when they are, what should happen. On the first argument about democracy, I do not see the solutions of the Bill as intrinsically any less democratic than the solution being pressed on us by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, so the argument is evenly balanced. The second argument is the one of practical—

Sir Ian Gilmour: Will my right hon. Friend answer the point about the change in political complexion? The first course recommended to him would not change the political complexion of the GLC, while his proposals do. That is surely an important democratic argument.

Mr. Jenkin: I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties. I firmly refute any suggestion that this has been done to secure that objective. In all the MCCs, that objective could not be achieved unless there are some unusual by-election results between now and then. It so happens that by applying the same rules, it would seem probable that there would be such a change in London. The change would be because the borough councils have a stronger Conservative representation than the 1981 elected GLC—the former were elected at a time when political sentiment in the capital was different from what it was in 1981. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West said, a by-product, and inevitable consequence of the solution that we have chosen. I firmly refute any suggestion that this should be seen as manipulation. I said that the arguments as to which is the more democratic case are more evenly balanced than my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate would allow.
4 am
I come to the second, practical, argument about what is likely to be the best solution in the practical circumstances that we face. I say firmly that the arguments advanced to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) seem to the Government to be overwhelming. The argument is simply about who is likely to have the greatest interest in making sure that services are run economically and efficiently, that assets are properly safeguarded, that finance is carefully

husbanded and that the staffs of existing services, most of whom will be transferred to the successor bodies, are properly looked after. Will they be those who have nothing to do with those problems after 1986 or those who will be carrying the responsibilities directly, either in borough and district councils, or as members of the joint boards that will be running the services? One has only to pose that question for the answer to become immediately apparent.

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: When one adds the fact that those running the upper tiers of metropolitan councils have steadfastly refused to offer any co-operation to the Government or the successor councils in facilitating the transfer, the argument becomes overwhelming. Therefore, I wish to put the case to the Committee that the arguments on the grounds of democracy and propriety are evenly balanced. In an earlier debate, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to The Guardian article by Mr. John Carvel. It must have been reassuring to the Committee that that article showed that the argument had been talked through by the Government before a decision was reached. It is evenly balanced.
When one considers the most practical outcome, offering the best prospect of a smooth and efficient transfer in the interests of the services and their clients, the case for the Bill's proposal becomes stronger.

Mr. Wareing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. To return to the point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Withington began, I do not think that an obvious solution emerged immediately. It is right to discuss the matter. On balance, however, the Government came down to the view that on grounds of propriety and democracy—(Interruption.]—the case was evenly balanced. The practical considerations of ensuring the smooth and efficient transfer from the metropolitan councils to their successor bodies — the argument in favour of nominating the interim council — is the deciding factor.
I am putting the case that I put to the House on Second Reading. I hope that the Committee will feel obliged to reject the amendments.

The Chairman: I call Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for West Derby has been waiting to intervene.

Mr. Wareing: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He is insisting that there is an even balance of argument between extending the term of office of the existing councils and of allowing district councils to appoint indirectly some of their members to control the councils during the transitional year. Has he not missed the essential point? On Merseyside, for example—I am sure that the case will be the same for the other metropolitan councils — only 49 councillors will be indirectly appointed by the district councils to serve the whole of Merseyside. Merseyside county council has 99 councillors. To whom would a constituent go with a complaint or a problem relating to the fire, police or bus service? The Secretary of State misses the essential point that in


practical terms there is no accountability on the part of those councillors to the people who elect them. He is putting an undue burden on the backs of the existing district councillors.

Mr. Jenkin: There are two separate arguments there, neither of which really arises on this amendment. If a constituent happened to be represented on the Merseyside county council by a county councillor who, like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was refusing to serve, one might legitimately ask to whom he should go if he wanted to make a complaint about the fire service. If he has district councillors who are serving on the upper tier body, obviously they are the people to whom he should go.
The questions of the number of, and the burden on, councillors arise on later amendments. So the hon. Gentleman has not made a case that would lead me to change the advice that I gave to the Committee a few moments ago, that these amendments should be rejected.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

The Chairman: Is the Minister giving way this time? Mr. Jenkin: I have finished.

The Chairman: The Minister has concluded his speech.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 260.

Division No. 288]
[4.8 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson,Donald
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Godman, Dr Norman


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Golding, John


Benn, Tony
Ground, Patrick


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Benyon, William
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bermingham, Gerald
Haynes, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Blair, Anthony
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Caborn, Richard
Janner, Hon Greville


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell, Ian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clarke, Thomas
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clay, Robert
Litherland, Robert 


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Conlan, Bernard
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Corbett, Robin
McTaggart, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Martin, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dobson, Frank
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Brien, William





O'Neill, Martin
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Park, George
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Parry, Robert
Skinner, Dennis 


Patchett, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ki'ds E)


Pendry, Tom
Snape, Peter


Penhaligon, David
Spearing, Nigel 


Pike, Peter
Stott, Roger


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin 


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wallace, James 


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rathbone, Tim
Wareing, Robert 


Redmond, M.
Williams, Rt Hon A. 


Robertson, George
Winnick, David 


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rowlands, Ted


Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and 


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. Fred Silvester


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Amess, David
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Arnold, Tom
Dunn, Robert


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)
Farr, John


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bendel!, Vivian
Fletcher, Alexander


Berry, Sir Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Freeman, Roger


Body, Richard
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Galley, Roy


Bottomley, Peter
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald(Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Greenway, Harry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John
Grylls, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bryan, Sir Paul



Budgen, Nick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nick
Hanley, Jeremy


Bulmer, Esmond
Hannam, John 


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Harvey, Robert


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, J.


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hickmet, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Cockeram, Eric
Hirst, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Couchman, James
Howard, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Crouch, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dicks, Terry
Hubbard-Miles, Peter






Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jackson,Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rowe, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Scott, Nicholas 


Lamont, Norman Lang,
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Spencer, Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lyell, Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrea, Rev William
Squire, Robin


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Neil
Stanley, John


MacGregor, John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maclean, David John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Made!, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Malone, Gerald
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maples, John
Sumberg, David Taylor,


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Antony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Trippier, David


Mills, ain (Meriden)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Neale, Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Needham, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Watson, John


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Normanton, Tom
Wheeler, John


Norris, Steven
Whitfield, John


Oppenheim, Philip
Wiggin, Jerry


Ottaway, Richard
Wolfson, Mark 


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wood, Timothy


Parris, Matthew
Woodcock, Michael


Patten, John (Oxford)
Yeo, Tim


Pattie, Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pawsey, James



Porter, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. John Major and Mr. 


Proctor, K. Harvey
Archie Hamilton.


Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 2, line 29, after 'councils' insert 'and the Common Council'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 63, in schedule 1, page 9, line 42, at end insert
'Common Council of City of London.'

Mr. Hughes: I am happy to tell the Committee that I do not propose to be very long, which means that everyone knows that they will be able to get home to bed.

Mr. Kevin Barron: He is after a bit of honest debate at about six o'clock.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has returned to the Chamber to discuss the City of London.
The two amendments will deal with yet another bizarre anomaly which shows how badly thought out the Bill is. They deal with the Government's proposal that the interirn body to run the GLC should be made up of nominees from the authorities. Clause 2(2) states:
As from 7th May 1985 the councillors of the Greater London Council and the councillors for a metropolitan county shall be persons appointed in accordance with this Part of this Act by"—
what are described as "the constituent councils." In subsection (3) the constituent councils in London are defined as the London borough councils. The amendments seek to insert the one part of the Greater London council area whose electors, if the proposals are adopted, will have no say in the running of the GLC.
The amendments would increase the size of the transitional GLC by one person, that one person to be a mominee of the City of London Common Council. The purpose is to ensure that the residents of the City of London, of whom there are about 8,000, and who at present are able to vote in GLC elections in the constituency of the City of London and Westminster South, will be represented, even if only by an elected method. At present they would not be represented directly or indirectly. We believe that the amendments have merit, although not because we support the way in which the City of London and its electors are represented. Indeed, we have not defended the composition of the Common Council of the City of London for the last 60 years.
In its original composition, the City of London was the first form of elected government, and it was then a progressive and radical innovation. That is the reason for its present formation. It is made up of people representing not just the electors, but also the business community. Paradoxically, it represents the business community that the Government seek to have represented in other ways, in other authorities. It has now got left behind with the times. We believe that the electors who live in the City of London should be represented in the way that the rest of the electors of London are represented. The structure of local government in the City, which Royal Commissions have never been brave enough to meet head on as an issue, should be amended so that the City of London is incorporated in one of the adjacent authorities.
There are many anomalies about the City of London that I will not go into now. I refer to one only that I discovered when I became a member of the Inner Temple — indeed, the Secretary of State became a member a short time before me. As a member of the Inner Temple


and a tenant of one of the two inns in the Temple, one automatically has a vote in the City of London. The electors of the ward in question, which is Farringdon Without, are those who are tenants of the two inns of court but who do not live in the City of London.
The Committee may be surprised to learn the following fact, and the amusing paradox of it. The electors of London have some needs which ought to be represented. The blight of unemployment and the inadequacy of transport affect them just as much as they affect people who live elsewhere. Some people who were born in the City of London still live there, such as the children of caretakers, schoolkeepers in schools in the City of London, and people whose families have lived there for generations. It is not confined to people who have moved into flats in the new Barbican development.
In the 1971 census, the ward with the highest rate of unemployment was the Bishopsgate ward of the City of London, where unemployment was 34 per cent. Although the number is small, the point is validly made that the electors of the City of London should be represented, and that all authorities that purport to represent Greater London, whther they are transitional or permanent, should represent all the electors of Greater London, and not only the vast majority of them. It is unsatisfactory that one group will be left out.
We do not have much faith that the electors in the City of London are represented in the best way possible or that the Common Council represents the best way of doing so. However, last week, when an election was held in one ward, I noted that all 18 electors turned out to vote. For as long as the Common Council exists—and given the Bill's long title, we cannot abolish it now—it should at least be able, as at present, to nominate a member to ILEA, and to nominate somebody to the transitional council for the GLC.
The amendment seeks to make it clear that yet another issue has not been thought through, and to straighten out another of the bizarre inconsistencies in the legislation. Those inconsistencies show quite clearly that the Bill has not been properly thought out and is being rushed. It would be better if it was dropped at this stage, so that we can look at the issue in its substance instead of in this halfway-house form. That is the major complaint that Liberal Members and many other hon. Members have made in the last few weeks and hours.

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall be even briefer than the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), although I shall have to make his speech for him. He seemed to miss the central point, and as I want to be friendly towards that point, I shall have to make it for him.
There are two ways of dealing with the transitional council. First, it can be looked at in terms of electors. There is no problem about electors who live in the City of London area, because under the Bill, as voters in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), they would be represented on the constituency basis that we propose for membership of the transitional council. Thus, representation would be on a constituency basis. It sounded as though the hon. Gentleman was putting that argument forward, but he does not really have a case.
However, there is a case that can be made, although the hon. Gentleman did not apparently make it. It is that the City of London would be the only successor authority to which functions would pass. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned another function that would pass to it in his recent statement. It would be the only successor authority that did not have a representative on the transitional council. The arguments are quite evenly balanced as to whether representation should be based on the parliamentary divisions—which is the standard form of representation for GLC membership — or on the successor authorities that take over functions.
I wrote down that, having listened to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, I would reconsider the issue. However, I do not think that I can say that. Having reinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's arguments, I would say to those of my hon. Friends who are concerned about this issue that we shall reconsider whether the City of London should have a representative on the transitional council, because it is a successor authority for some of the functions. That would be the basis on which it should have representation. We can allay any fears about the electors being represented, because representation on the transitional council is based on the parliamentary constituency. Thus, that is not a problem. However, we shall reconsider the matter. Perhaps, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: Any amendment that gave the City of London representation would have our support on only one extremely narrow ground, which is that it might be one of the few amendments in Committee that could lead on to Report stage. There are no other grounds on which Labour Members would support it. It would have the effect of giving a disproportionate amount of representation to a very small number of people who are not directly represented, but who are represented through a basically undemocratic City of London. Furthermore, it would lead to an even greater imbalance in the representation on other bodies, because it would give an even greater built-in Tory majority on successor bodies to a council that is at present Labour controlled.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I take the Minister's point. Unless I have misunderstood the Bill, under clause 2(2) in the year 1985-86, the councillors of the GLC should be
persons appointed in accordance with this Part of this Act by the constituent council.
The clause then mentions the borough councils. Schedule 1 lists the boroughs, but no reference is made to the City of London, or to the parliamentary division of the City of London and Westminster, South. There is no provision for its representative to have any say in who represents the electors of London.
I accept that the Government believe that the new authority should be the trail for the successor authority and that therefore whether one of the boroughs should be included is a secondary issue. We are talking about interim provisions.
Can the Minister confirm that my reading of the Bill is correct? We are not talking about parliamentary divisions, but boroughs. Have the parliamentary divisions no relevance to the argument? If I am right about that, will the Minister assure me that he will consider the problem? Without that assurance the Committee may be confused


about the clause, which is of importance to the City's 8,000 electors. Despite our reservations, the provision seems to be an adminstrative improvement. If the Government are prepared to move amendments on Report, I shall not press our amendment to a Division.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'from among its members'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 34, after `members', insert
'or from among members of the Greater London Council or Metropolitan County Councils who on the date of appointment were members of those authorities for constituencies within the local authority area of each such appointing council'.

Mr. Hughes: The point of the amendment is the same as that of amendment No. 9, which is not to be pursued. It deals with a further anomaly and allows the constituent authorities — the boroughs and I hope the City of London—to appoint to the transitional authority anyone they choose. One of the consequences of the Government's proposal is that the present members of the GLC will not be eligible to serve.
Because they are members of borough councils, they may not be able, from 1986 onwards, to sit on the GLC again. It can be argued that the one group with experience is rendered ineligible when the borough councils can nominate others who are not former GLC members.
Amendment No 18 in the names of the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) suggests an alternative way of phrasing that the Government may find more accurate. I do not pretend that it would be equally acceptable to us. It would mean that the transitional authorities would be composed not only of members of borough councils but would be drawn from the members of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils who, on the date of appointment, were members of the authorities for the relevant areas.
The important issue is that we are again showing up that the way in which the Government are proposing to run Greater London and six enormous metropolitan areas will make the task of the elected representatives most difficult, because they will be there on an interim basis for one year with no previous experience of running the council. The task of the officers will be most difficult because they will not have the guidance and direction of councillors with experience. Therefore, the running of the services in a difficult year will be less efficient and satisfactory.
Councillors who have already been elected to district councils in the metropolitan areas and to borough councils in London will have the additional burden of having to serve for one year on the GLC or metropolitan councils. This will inevitably mean that they will not do a good job, however hard they may try and however willing they may be, because they will already have a wide range of responsibilities.
It would be better to have people who did not have to duplicate work and do additional work to carry out the responsibilities in the remaining years of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC if the Government's proposals are accepted. As we have said throughout the debate, we reject this way of proceeding either with the

interim provisions or with the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. If we must accept a change, let us make sure that the transitional authorities have as members the best people available.

Mr. Shersby: The purpose of amendment No. 18 which stands in my name is to enable a constituent council to appoint as councillors of the Greater London council or metropolitan county councils persons
who on the date of appointment were members of those authorities for constituencies within the local authority area of each such appointing council".
In Greater London, for example, it would mean that the London boroughs, if they so wished—I emphasise "if they so wished"—would have the freedom to appoint members chosen either from the ranks of sitting borough councillors or from sitting GLC members for constituencies within their borough.
There are several reasons for this proposal, with which I trust the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will have sympathy, as he alluded to it. First, it would introduce greater flexibility into the appointment of councillors by widening the ranks from which candidates could be chosen. Secondly, it would enable a number of experienced councillors to be appointed. This would benefit both the nominated authorities and to the local authority areas to be represented on the nominated authorities. Thirdly, it would help to solve the problem which some local authorities will experience of finding suitable candidates from among their members who have the necessary time, particularly during the day, and the necessary inclination and experience to serve on the nominated GLC or metropolitan authority.
A number of constituent authorities will have considerable difficulty in finding councillors who are prepared to give up time during the day to serve on these county authorities. The GLC meets during the day. The burden on existing GLC members is heavy and I believe that borough councils will be hard put to it to find people who have the time.
The GLC and the metropolitan county councils are a very different type of authority from the London borough councils. Consequently, there is a real need for a sprinkling of existing GLC and MCC members to be reappointed. After all, they know how the upper-tier authorities work. They could a great deal to strengthen the ranks of councillors who will be appointed by the lower-tier authorities. In short, they know how to run the machine and could do much to assist councillors from the lower-tier authorities in getting to grips with the vital work of transferring responsibilities to the boroughs and the joint boards.
I wonder what possible objection there could be to this proposal. Some may say that they do not wish to be reappointed to the GLC and MCCs—members who are opposed to abolition and would try to obstruct progress towards it. Can that objection really be sustained? I do not think that it can. After all, the provisions of part IV will, presumably, be in force and will require all nominated councillors to furnish information to the Secretary of State. They will be expected to co-operate in an orderly transfer of responsibilities. Moreover, the nominated authorities will be rate-capped by the time they transfer to the second-tier authorities. They will be operating in an entirely different climate from that which now exists.
There is another important reason for accepting the amendment. If amendment No. 21, which also stands in my name, is carried, it would protect the rights of minority political parties and ensure that the nominated authority is composed of members of all the existing major parties and that the membership will comprise both seasoned councillors and new members from the lower-tier authorities.
For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say on a matter which, despite the lateness of the hour, I consider to be of considerable importance. The House has taken some important decisions tonight on constitutional matters that exercise the minds of most responsible Members of the House. Some 40 minutes ago we took the decision not to extend the term of office of the present GLC. We are now moving towards the approval of a Bill that will require the constituent council members to find two, three or four of their existing number to serve on the metropolitan county authorities and the GLC. Many of those members, despite their distinguished record in local government at borough level, will not have experience of county authority work. They will not be familiar with its procedures or be used to working with its officers.
The House would be wise, in considering the Bill, to give greater flexibility to the appointing authorities. I am not suggesting that they should be compelled to appoint people who already serve on metropolitan county authorities or the GLC, but it would be wise and reasonable to introduce a modicum of flexibility into the appointment procedure. I hope very much that my hon. Friend can give an encouraging response to that proposal.

Sir George Young: The two amendments seek to broaden the eligibility of individuals to be appointed to the transitional councils. Amendment No. 53 would extend eligibility to anyone and amendment No. 18 would extend it to those serving as GLC or MCC councillors at the date of the appointment.
Amendment No. 53 would delete the requirement to appoint from among constituent council members and, as a result, anyone could be appointed. There are two fundamental objections to that. First, it would undermine the link between the upper and lower tiers in the interim period, and that link has an essential part to play in helping to ensure a smooth transition. Secondly—and this is clearly a less democratic alternative to that proposed by the Government or my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—the individual concerned need not at any time have stood for election or been returned at an election. Those are two good reasons for putting that on one side.
Amendment No. 18 would permit people serving as GLC or MCC councillors now to be appointed to the transitional councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge emphasised the advantage of continuity that that would bring. But it would not provide the essential link with the lower tier authority, which is a feature of our proposals. The electoral mandate of the individuals concerned would have expired by the time they came to serve on the transitional council.
4.45 am
However, I take on board the concern that my hon. Friend expressed about the appointed councillors having

sufficient experience to run the transitional councils effectively. We are talking about a period of only 11 months and about having to find three or four individuals, depending on the size of the council, from among a local authority of 60 or 70 members.
We share my hon. Friend's objectives, but we feel that there are other ways of securing them. As the Bill stands, councillors who have dual upper and lower tier membership will be eligible for appointment. In addition, certainly in London, there are a number of ex-GLC councillors who are now borough council members and who will be eligible to serve, and they have the benefit of GLC experience. In the London borough of Hammersmith, for instance, there are two borough councillors who used to be GLC members, and they would be able to perform this job well in the interim period.
The constituent councils should begin to identify their appointees now so that those people can start to familiarise themselves with the upper tier responsibilities. Clause 7 will help them get the information that they need from the upper tier for this process of familiarisation.
There are, therefore, a number of ways in which experience can be brought to the transitional councils without resorting to the solution proposed in the amendment. The solution that we have put forward forges the link between the two tiers in the interim period, whereas neither of the two amendments has that advantage. For that reason I urge the Committee to reject them.

Mr. Shersby: I was puzzled by my hon. Friend's reply. He said that amendment No. 18 would not provide the essential link with lower tier authorities. Let us examine that statement. In the London borough of Hillingdon there will be three Greater London councillors on the nominated authority. It would be open to Hillingdon —or any other London borough; I take Hillingdon as an example—to appoint, say, one of its members, if it so wished, from among the existing sitting members of the GLC and, say, two from its own ranks, or two and one or whatever formula might be chosen. I cannot see that appointing one sitting Greater London councillor to represent one of the London boroughs would be breaking the link with the lower tier authority.
Surely my hon. Friend accepts that all conscientious Greater London councillors — and, doubtless, metropolitan county councillors — maintain the closest possible links not only with their colleagues who serve on the lower tier authorities but with the officers of those authorities, Members of Parliament and all the others concerned. It is fair to say that most of us work as a team, that hon. Members are on good personal terms with their county and borough councillors, and I cannot see that by appointing one or two existing members, if that was the wish of the local authority, there would be any breaking of the link in the way in which my hon. Friend described.
My hon. Friend spoke of a number of former metropolitan county councillors or Greater London councillors who serve on borough councils. I appreciate that there are a number, but some of them served on those councils a long time ago, and some are not so young as they were. I doubt whether, across London or across the metropolitan counties, it would be that easy to find people who were able to give up the time and be prepared to travel to the metropolitan county authority to serve in the daytime and so on.
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has made an especially convincing case for rejecting the amendment. Although I do not propose to press it to a Division at 4.49 in the morning, I ask him sincerely to consider the matter most carefully before the Bill returns to the House on Report.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am intrigued by the amendment and I thought that the Minister might wish to accept it. I am able to suggest a situation in which he and his colleagues would be most delighted to be able to nominate individuals to the interim bodies which are outside the borough and district councils. It is not only GLC members who might resist the idea of having their term of office extended, for there is a strong possibility that borough and district councils will refuse to nominate, or will find it extremely difficult to find people who are willing to serve.
I know that some rather Machiavellian figure in the Department of the Environment has already worked this one out. There is a provision in the Bill that allows the Secretary of State to vary the quorum of a council. If that had not been included, it would have been open to Labour Members to decline to become involved and therefore ensure that the interim bodies did not function. If Conservative councillors also declined to serve, what would happen? Has the Minister thought that one through? If that were to happen there would be no interim bodies. If the Minister were to accept the amendment, the Government could get round the difficulty by having appointees who were not borough councillors or district concillors. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he has thought this through.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sad that the Minister has not responded more positively to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I think that there are seven members of the GLC who are presently also members of borough authorities. Therefore, there are only those councillors who will be able to continue with their responsibilities, if their boroughs nominate them, after 1985. It is vital that we do not play an administrative game to ensure that people are nominated from boroughs as a trail-in prior to ensuring that the boroughs continue to have nomination rights after 1986, when they may not nominate the same individuals. Indeed, the same people may not be re-elected to be nominated. We should try seriously to ensure continuity of the best form of competent governors for the seven councils with which we are concerned.
I ask the Minister seriously to consult his colleagues and to consider within the Department whether it is possible at least to accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Uxbridge, even if it is not possible to accept the widest amendment. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would allow competent individuals with experience to continue to do their job if the authorities in whose areas they now work wished them to continue to do so. It is logical and sensible and it would produce a slightly more experienced and better governing set of councillors. As there is no immediate response from the Minister, I shall not detain the Committee further by pressing the amendment to a Division.
Amendment negatived.
To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.1]
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — Coal Mining Dispute

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Kevin Barron: The coal mining dispute is of great national importance. At the root of the problem in the coalfield is the fact that the Government and the National Coal Board have reneged on the "Plan for Coal" which was drawn up in the mid-1970s by the Labour Government and the trade unions.
On 22 November 1983, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy made a statement on the Government's objectives for the coal mining industry. The hon. Gentleman read out to the Standing Committee on the Coal Industry Bill an objective, which I believe is one of the main factors behind the coal dispute. He said:
the National Coal Board should aim to maximise its long-term profitability by securing those sales which are profitable on a continuing basis, its competition with other fuels. It should plan its marketing, production and capital investment accordingly and bring productive capacity into line with its continuing share of the market." — [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 22 November 1983; c. 38.]
That objective seriously undermines the "Plan for Coal" which was agreed by all involved in the industry. For the first time, the coal industry felt it could achieve certain targets in the 1980s and beyond which it had not reached under private enterprise before 1947 or in the nationalised framework since 1947. The industry were given a guarantee for the future.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House might say, "That is fine. We can find the markets for the coal." I am not convinced that the industry needs to suffer the 4 million tonne loss anticipated by the NCB. It is remarkable to note, on listening to debates on the common agricultural policy or other European matters, that we cannot find a market for those 4 million tonnes in the EEC, which imports more than 25 per cent. of the coal it uses. I am sure that there are parts of this country where 4 million tonnes of coal could be used.
In 1980, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was in charge, the Department of Energy asked Coopers and Lybrand to study the electricity supply industry and how it should be operated. It produced a report which has only recently been brought to the attention of a Select Committee that was studying proposed increases in gas and electricity prices. Those increases have been imposed on consumers. It was recommended that the electricity supply industry should reduce the price of electricity, I shall not go into the details of the percentage that was discussed. If Coopers and Lybrand's recommended electricity price reductions had been accepted by the Government, we might have been able to use the 4 million tonnes of coal that appears to be behind the present dispute, and people might have been warmer during the winter.
The ripping up of the "Plan for Coal" by the Government in the past 12 months has had a great effect. There is no doubt that the appointment of Ian MacGregor last autumn was a deft ploy by the Government designed to run down the coal industry faster than it had been run down in the previous three years. If one heeded the comments in the media, one would not believe that in the past three financial years we had lost 42,000 jobs in coal mining. That is a remarkable figure. If one listened to the


commentators, one would think that not one job had been lost recently. The Government's ploy to run down coal mining faster than ever, and the inroduction of Mr. MacGregor to carry that out, has not been mentioned by commentators.
I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the debate on the Supplementary Estimates that we had on 8 March 1984 when I commented on the position in the coal industry and what other people had said, and said that Mr. MacGregor, the chairman of the National Coal Board, is often called the mad axeman of coal mining. In view of the loss of 42,000 jobs, that comment is not far wrong.
The Government were warned last August by the then chairman of the NCB, Sir Norman Siddall, that the introduction of Mr. MacGregor and the speeding up of mine closures would lead to the present dispute. It is reported in Hansard that I told the House that Sir Norman Siddall had said that it would be foolish for the Government and Mr. MacGregor to treat the coal industry as they had treated the British Steel Corporation. He said that they were two different industries. That has happened in the past six months in the coal industry and has been the major factor which has led to the present dispute.
The dispute has meant that the vast majority of coal miners have been on strike for over two months. That is something that the House does not seem to have fully recognised. This is of national importance, and I look forward to a full day's debate in the House on the dispute, which is of great importance, given the great majority of miners who are on strike.
What is unique about this dispute is that nobody has said how greedy the miners are in terms of wages, incentives, bonus payments and so on, as has been said many times before about the miners when they have taken industrial action. It is important that I stress that the vast majority of the miners who have been on strike for over two months have not been on strike because of any political bias or because they have anything to gain as individuals, certainly in the immediate future. They are on strike because they fear for the future of the mining industry, themselves and the mining communities.
I ask the Minister to take this to heart. The miners do not want something only for themselves. We recognise that pits must close at some stage, such as when seams are exhausted. The dispute started because the National Coal Board announced the closure of Cortonwood colliery, which is not far from my constituency. The miners there were told by the NCB that the jobs would not go and there were jobs for the 850 men in other south Yorkshire coalfields. The premature closure of the colliery takes away job opportunities for many of my constituents and of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett), who is in the Chamber. It is nonsense for the NCB or the Government to claim that there will not be job losses because of this closure, because every closure goes further than the immediate jobs in the pit. It will take away job opportunities for hundreds of people in the area.
I am an ex-coal miner, and I was a craftsman. In four years, one can learn a trade in the industry. If the colliery did not close until it was exhausted, as was promised only last year, young people in our area, which has massive youth unemployment, could be sent to the colliery, work there for four years and learn a trade and would have some

opportunity of a job in another place. The high unemployment levels near the coalfield reflect what has happened there recently. It is of great importance that such issues should be discussed in the House.
The future of whole communities is to be decided by the book-keeping methods of the NCB, and that is what the dispute is about We are talking about book-keeping rather than looking after mining communities. The Government know that the cost to the taxpayers of keeping the collieries open is less than the cost of closing the collieries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy replied to my question on 1 December 1983, in the Standing Committee considering the Coal Industry Bill, by saying that 40,000 jobs was about the number that would be lost from the British coal mining industry and that the 70,000 to 100,000 jobs talked of by the NUM in terms of the costs to coal, were rather high.
The NUM was talking of 70,000 to 100,000 job losses in 1980-81, figures given at that time by the National Coal Board and based on closures of what it then called uneconomic pits. Forty-two thousand jobs have been lost in the past three financial years in the British coal mining industry, and there is nothing schizophrenic about talk of the loss of 70,000 or 100,000 jobs in a 10-year programme, on which the NUM's figures for pit closures were based. We know that the 42,000 job losses, plus the 20,000 proposed this financial year in the British coal mining industry have already grown to more than 60,000 losses. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers saying in committee that 40,000 job losses would be the order of the day.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the NUM has not been far wrong in terms of the planned reduction in manpower in the coal industry and that the NUM is not wrong about the cost to public funds. It will be more expensive to carry on the reduction in manpower than to stop it now.
Many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have asked the Government to intervene in the dispute. I do not wish to do so, as I believe that the Government are already intervening, and have been doing so for a long time. If I asked the Government to do anything, I would ask them to intervene in a positive manner, and not in the very negative and nasty way that they have done for the past two months. I believe that the Government will go to any lengths in the dispute, no matter what the cost to public funds in any area, to try to defeat the NUM.
I am convinced that that has been the case in the past two months. I do not know whether the Government will force the CEGB, which is a public company over which the hon. Gentleman had much control, as I know from the Committee, to use all of its five major oil-fired power stations to generate electricity, which it is in a position to do, at great cost to the British public. I have no doubt that electricity prices will increase at some stage as a result. It costs about 50 per cent. more to generate electricity using oil than coke.
I also believe that the use of police in the dispute on an unprecedented scale in the Midlands coal field to stop what I regard as the traditional right of trade unionists to picket peacefully and to get the support of other members has had a tremendous effect on the country. The Government or the police authorities have been obliged to spend millions of pounds in this connection. Conservative Members say that that is to uphold the right of people to go to work.


However, 3·1 million people are officially unemployed, and it is incredible — insulting in many ways — to consider how little is spent in attempting to give them the right to go to work. We listen to the Government's words when so many millions of pounds have been spent by the police authorities in an attempt to stop the traditional right of mineworkers to picket lawfully.
The treatment of miners' families over the payment of supplementary benefit is also incredible. There is an immediate right to take away £15 which has not necessarily been paid to miners by the trade union. The same is true in other areas such as heating allowance. The families of miners are being treated worse than if they were criminals, held in prison for any crime. That is utterly disgraceful. The dispute has gone on in Britain for over two months now and that is another issue that ought to be debated. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) requested a debate under Standing Order No. 10. Now that the dispute has continued for so long it ought to be debated in the House.
Miners' families are being discriminated against. Why? Because miners are trade unionists and are prepared to stand up and fight for their jobs and for the jobs of their sons and daughters in the future. That is an important fact when one considers that all but one coalfield have unemployment far greater than the national average.
It is important that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy should attempt to answer some of the points that I have put to him. I feel terribly aggrieved that the Government can say that they will not get involved when obviously they are. They say that they will keep their head in the sand, but they do not. The Government are prepared to use public money. How much does not matter as long as it can be seen to feed the lust of the Prime Minister's political ego. The matter has come down to that. That is what it is about.
I am convinced that in the end justice will prevail in Britain and that the miners will win the fight to keep jobs in the British coal mining industry, no matter what is said by the Government. That is most important of all. The Minister should answer the central point, that the Government have recently ripped up "Plan for Coal" and have provoked this dispute when it should have been unnecessary. I shall give the Minister a few minutes to do that. The dispute has been caused by the Government. Ian MacGregor was set on to carry on the work that he did in British Steel. As a consequence, the problems of Britain as a result of the present mining dispute can be laid directly at the Government's doorstep. That is something that the Government must answer for at some time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): It is traditional to congratulate an hon. Member on raising a subject on the Adjournment of the House. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), with his long experience of the coal industry, has been able to deploy his considerable skills in relation to the present dispute.
However, I must make the observation that, while I can understand that the hon. Gentleman should seek a debate on the issues of the coal industry, I am astonished that he has not found the leader of the Labour party prepared to introduce the subject as a matter for debate. Presumably that will be done in due course.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from the objectives given to Mr. MacGregor at the time the Coal Industry Bill was in Committee. I must remind him that the aim of bringing capacity into line with the market place has been fundamental to the objectives given to chairmen of the National Coal Board for a considerable time. I could argue that "Plan for Coal" was an attempt to do just that—to provide an objective for the market for coal.
The hon. Gentleman then dealt with the question of Cortonwood, which I know is also of interest to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett). I understand entirely why the problem has been raised by successive hon. Members. However, the hon. Member for Rother Valley will be aware that the area director has written to all those who are involved at Cortonwood. His letter dated 28 March makes one or two fairly important observations which the House has not had the opportunity of hearing.
The first thing he stressed was that
every man who wants a job will have the opportunity of transferring to another local pit. What I said at the Area Review Meeting, attended by all Trade Unions' Representatives, was that I intended to offer men over the age of 50 the opportunity of voluntary redundancy and the younger men the chance to transfer elsewhere"—
with the usual transfer allowances—
but nobody will have to leave the industry against his will.
He went on to say:
At the Area Review Meeting I proposed that we should meet again quickly with the local representatives of each Union present. Two of the Unions have agreed to such a meeting, but the NUM have not. After the meeting with the local Branches, it is still open to any of the Unions to appeal against my decision to bring forward the closure. I also gave an undertaking, which still stands, that until the Review Procedure had been fully exhausted and the outcome known, I would take no steps to implement the closure. No developments will be stopped or production districts salvaged.
The hon. Gentleman should understand that, on the record  at any rate, those comments were made in a letter of 28 March to all gentlemen at Cortonwood.
The hon. Gentleman's main point is about the thrust of "Plan for Coal", and he criticised the Government for their part in, as he put it, undermining "Plan for Coal." But I see no basic contradiction between "Plan for Coal" and the policies being pursued by the Government. In 1984, even more than in 1974, we must seek to establish an efficient, competitive coal industry with a secure long-term future. However, while the underlying objectives remain the same, the world has changed.
In 1974 we had come abruptly to the end of the era of cheap oil. Energy demand was seen to be rising and the demand for coal was thought to be rising with it. In fact the demand for coal was already falling when "Plan for Coal" was published, and continued to do so in the ensuing years. Nor have other assumptions been realised. "Plan for Coal" envisaged an improvement in productivity of 4 per cent. per year, but by the end of 1983 output per manshift was only 4·7 per cent. higher than it had been 10 years earlier. Closures, too, had been expected to run at a higher rate than has been the case. "Plan for Coal" foresaw 3 to 4 million tonnes of capacity closing each year as against 1 to 2 million tonnes which have closed.
The one area—here the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—in which we have exceeded "Plan for Coal" is in investment. A massive investment programme was a cornerstone of "Plan for Coal" and that has been more than achieved by successive Governments who have spent, in current prices, more than £7,500 million since 1974. Total investment in the coal industry in the five years since the


Government took office in 1979 has been £3·8 billion. This is £4·4 billion at September 1983 prices, compared with £2·8 billion on the same price basis in the preceding five years of Labour Government.
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that those are vital contributions to the future of the industry. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government should intervene in this dispute, but I suggest to him that previous Government intervention has been to provide immense amounts of resources to enable the industry to develop. The Government want to see an effective, viable and productive coal industry which will offer substantial employment and be able to satisfy customers the world over. That is why we backed the National Coal Board in its wage offer of 5·2 per cent., to ensure that the miners continue to be among the highest-paid industrial workers. That is why we shall continue to provide up to a further £3 billion for investment during the next four years. Currently investment is running at £70 per employee per week in the industry. That is why we backed the Coal Board with deficit grants in 1983–84 of a further £70 a head a week for everyone who works in the industry.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the industry's losses before grant last year were equivalent to £70 per employee per week. In return surely we have the right to ask that the industry puts its house in order, recognises the facts of economic life and shapes itself to meet the challenge of future circumstances.
The crucial change the the hon. Gentleman wants to see —I accept his point entirely—is more customers for British coal. That is the only way to secure a future for British mining, yet the chances are that there will be fewer customers. We tried to extend the market to industrial users, but there have been only two applications under the coal conversion scheme since the dispute started. There has been a postponement of probably the biggest coal conversion scheme at ICI. We need more customers, not fewer, and change will bring opportunities for new markets, but only if the price is competitive and if delivery is assured. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that with the prospect of orders not being delivered, or of customers not being able to obtain coal at the price they want, the chances for the future of the industry are bleak. There is plenty of evidence that, despite the efforts made to obtain export orders for British coal, there will be real problems in retaining the confidence of the customers that we so sorely need.
The current dispute is deeply damaging to miners and to the industry. What is required is more commitment to price coal at a level at which customers want to buy. That will assure a delivery increase—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Five o'clock am.